# Most incredible historical inaccuracies in movies. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 15, 2009, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348 "2009-12-15T13:27:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/41 "2009-12-15T18:49:58Z")
Quite a few Hollywood movies have been **pre** historically inaccurate. The most glaringly obvious are those showing primitive humans coexisting with dinosaurs, but even something like [_10,000 B.C._](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10,000_BC_(film)) is quite a howler. Sabertooth tigers the size of horses?! Mountains full of glaciers and mammoths within walking distance of proto-Egypt?! ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/42 "2009-12-15T18:51:28Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > And that’s no different from doing a history of Hans Christian Andersen that ignored any historical facts about him. But HCA didn’t pretend to be accurate; **Mad Men** does. > > It’s especially bad when they use an anachronism as a major plot point. That’s just cheap writing. You could write a great movie where the air force saves Custer, but it’s not historically accurate. > > **Mad Men** is filled with major misrepresentations of the era it’s supposed to portray, and often uses these as a cheap shortcut in storytelling. It’s quite clear that the creators really have no idea of what the era was like, yet construct plots around their lack of knowledge (and yes, I lived through the era, too). That’s interesting because so many people all over the Internet gush over how real it is, right down to the girdles they wear. It’s always made me eye roll because I just never got into the whole Mad Men thing. I’ve seen a few eps–can you give some more examples of stuff that’s inaccurate? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/43 "2009-12-15T18:53:30Z")
I’ll never get past the scene in _Australia_ where they showed Japanese soldiers on the ground in Darwin (or just offshore). It completely took me out of the movie–not that that was any great loss. ---
**Author:** ![BobArrgh](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobarrgh/32/2881_2.png) [@BobArrgh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobArrgh)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/44 "2009-12-15T19:03:34Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite. What’s wrong with the poster? The poster is for a movie called “Custer’s Last Stand”. George Armstrong Custer was a soldier in the U.S. Cavalry. He died at Little Big Horn. As a soldier, he would have been dressed in his blue uniform. Neither of the men in the poster appear to be soldiers. One is dressed as a frontier man, while the other is dressed as (what appears to be) a gambler. Custer was known for his long, flowing, blond hair. Neither of the men on the poster have that hairstyle. The men appear to be on the verge of a gunfight. The term, “Custer’s Last Stand” is most typically used to describe the folly that is known as the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Custer (and all the men under his command) were killed by Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. Custer was also married. The poster shows what looks like two men having a fight over a woman. In short, the only accuracies between the poster and Custer’s actual life is that it depicts frontier America during the 19th Century, and Custer was a man who had a woman in his life. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/45 "2009-12-15T19:13:39Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > That’s interesting because so many people all over the Internet gush over how real it is, right down to the girdles they wear. It’s always made me eye roll because I just never got into the whole Mad Men thing. > > I’ve seen a few eps–can you give some more examples of stuff that’s inaccurate? I’ve watched the show since the beginning & love it. The pacing is subtle & character based–until it speeds up & blows your mind. But it’s not for everyone. The art direction & costumes are beautifully done. To me, the historical background is more for atmosphere than for The Truth About The Early 60’s. Anyone who’s truly ignorant about the era ought to, perhaps, read a book. Or two. Besides, the OP is about movies. _Mad Men_ is a TV show. ---
**Author:** ![Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Speak\_to\_me\_Maddie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speak_to_me_Maddie)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/46 "2009-12-15T19:40:16Z")
> [@BobArrgh](#): > > The poster is for a movie called “Custer’s Last Stand”. > > George Armstrong Custer was a soldier in the U.S. Cavalry. He died at Little Big Horn. As a soldier, he would have been dressed in his blue uniform. Neither of the men in the poster appear to be soldiers. One is dressed as a frontier man, while the other is dressed as (what appears to be) a gambler. > > Custer was known for his long, flowing, blond hair. Neither of the men on the poster have that hairstyle. > > The men appear to be on the verge of a gunfight. > > The term, “Custer’s Last Stand” is most typically used to describe the folly that is known as the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Custer (and all the men under his command) were killed by Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne warriors. > > Custer was also married. The poster shows what looks like two men having a fight over a woman. > > In short, the only accuracies between the poster and Custer’s actual life is that it depicts frontier America during the 19th Century, and Custer was a man who had a woman in his life. Well, after reading a synopsis of that film it is pretty clear neither of the men pictured is Custer. This film purportedly shows events involving some (fictional) perhiperhal characters leading up to the Battle of Little Bighorn. It looks like perhaps the film culminates at the battle. Maybe Custer makes an apperance there. Kinda like titiling _Gangs of New York_ the “New York Draft Riots” instead. ---
**Author:** ![Umbriel2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/4af34b/32.png) [@Umbriel2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Umbriel2)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/47 "2009-12-15T19:54:15Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Just as with “U-571,” no Americans took part in “The Great Escape,” but the movie was filled with them (Steve McQueen, James Garner, et al.). I’m pretty sure only McQueen was _playing_ an American. I think Garner was playing a Canadian, James Coburn an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole. In fact, given the presumption that they had to have an American character in a significant role, I think they made an admirable effort to keep things historical in that respect. Given that the plot of _U-571_ diverges pretty significantly from history, I really think it’s less an American hijacking of British history than simply a made up story. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/48 "2009-12-15T19:55:26Z")
(wrong thread) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Q](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/898d66/32.png) [@Johnny\_Q](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Q)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/49 "2009-12-15T20:02:41Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > [Krakatoa: East of Java](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064555/). > > Krakatoa was \*west \*of Java. Well sure, if you want to take the short cut. ---
**Author:** ![Reloy3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c68b51/32.png) [@Reloy3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reloy3)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/50 "2009-12-15T20:07:38Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > See Post #18, above. Sorry, didn’t see it until later. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/51 "2009-12-15T20:14:58Z")
Cripes amighty. We get this far into the thread and no one has yet mentioned the fantasy that was J.F.K.? > [@Umbriel2](#): > > Given that the plot of _U-571_ diverges pretty significantly from history, I really think it’s less an American hijacking of British history than simply a made up story. Apparently the “taking credit from the British” angle is what gets some people’s shorts in a bunch over U-571. But there was _no_ incident in the war anything like the plot of U-571. The encounter on which the movie was apparently _very_ loosely based involved the capture of a German sub by British forces. After the Germans had evacuated the damaged vessel, a British crew went aboard and, under hazardous conditions (no one knew if scuttling charges were ready to go off) went through the sub gathering papers and equipment, including an Enigma machine. They then tried to tow the sub back to port, but it sank. This was an intelligence coup for which the British crew was decorated, but it would have made a hell of a dull movie. The closing credits of U-571 mention both British and American actions in which Enigmas were captured from the Germans. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/52 "2009-12-15T20:31:13Z")
> [@Umbriel2](#): > > I’m pretty sure only McQueen was _playing_ an American. I think Garner was playing a Canadian, James Coburn an Australian, and Charles Bronson a Pole. If memory serves, Garner was playing a member of an RAF Eagle Squadron–Americans who signed up with the RAF prior to the US entering the war. As such, his presence with the British RAF officers would make more sense than just making him an American like Steve McQueen. There was a Canadian character (Coburn fights with him to create a distraction) but I cannot remember who it was. Certainly there were Canadians involved in the actual Great Escape; one of the tunnel engineers was Wally Floody, a hard rock miner from Northern Ontario. Thinking of war movies, I’ll offer _The Devil’s Brigade_–the story of the First Special Service Force ([Wikipedia link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Brigade)). This was a joint US-Canada force created during WWII. The actual Force was involved in some fierce fighting as depicted in the movie, but the movie made it look as if a group of undisciplined clods were the American contribution to the Force, while the Canadians contributed spit-and-polish, super-polite soldiers. As far as I am aware, this is untrue (though it made for an entertaining first half of the movie). Both the Americans and Canadians who made up the Force were tough, well-trained and disciplined soldiers prior to training. As I understand things, both countries’ soldiers worked well together during training and in the field, and there was very little friction between them. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/53 "2009-12-15T20:50:52Z")
**Patton** , great movie but apparently the director decided Panzers were all camouflaged to look like American Korean War surplus. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/54 "2009-12-15T21:05:39Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > But there was _no_ incident in the war anything like the plot of U-571. The encounter on which the movie was apparently _very_ loosely based involved the capture of a German sub by British forces. After the Germans had evacuated the damaged vessel, a British crew went aboard and, under hazardous conditions (no one knew if scuttling charges were ready to go off) went through the sub gathering papers and equipment, including an Enigma machine. They then tried to tow the sub back to port, but it sank. This was an intelligence coup for which the British crew was decorated, but it would have made a hell of a dull movie. > > The closing credits of U-571 mention both British and American actions in which Enigmas were captured from the Germans. The (I think only) US capture of a sub with Enigma was [U-505](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-505), which is pretty much the same incident (except that the sub was recovered and is now in a museum). However, this happened quite late in the war and it’s true the American contribution was pretty minor. After all, it was [the Poles](http://www.enigmahistory.org/text.html) that first captured a machine and cracked the code. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Draper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Don\_Draper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Draper)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/55 "2009-12-15T21:33:58Z")
> [@StoutHearted](#): > > Confession: I own five different versions of the film _Pride and Prejudice_. I always get a kick out of how not one of them agree on what the women’s fashions were supposed to look like. One version has them in thick fabrics with expansive hoop skirts, while another has them in thin, clingy gowns. From reading about the time period, I believe the more accurate portrayal of a gentleman’s daughter’s clothing would be a dress with a high empire waist, with no hoop skirt or severe corset. That’s not nearly as inaccurate as the idea of a lower middle-class gentlemen being able to afford to send five daughters to the far east for extensive martial arts & ninja assassin training in order to effectively combat the scourge of un-living, flesh-eating zombies. In fact, I’m fairly certain that attacks by Romero-style zombies were not especially common during the late 18th century. What? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/56 "2009-12-15T22:19:20Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > I’ve watched the show since the beginning & love it. The pacing is subtle & character based–until it speeds up & blows your mind. But it’s not for everyone. > > The art direction & costumes are beautifully done. To me, the historical background is more for atmosphere than for The Truth About The Early 60’s. Anyone who’s truly ignorant about the era ought to, perhaps, read a book. Or two. > > Besides, the OP is about movies. _Mad Men_ is a TV show. My Mom, born in 1938, loves that show and raves about all of the little details that they get right. She said that there is rarely an episode that doesn’t remind her of something that she hadn’t thought about in decades. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/57 "2009-12-15T22:49:57Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Me, I like the wayyyy-over-the-top absurdities of **300** , mixed with the wonderfulness of the helot-owning Spartans talking about the joys of Freedom, and complaining about those gay Athenians. About the only positive thing I can say about _300_ is that they might have gotten pretty close to accurately representing the Spartan mind set. There’s a scene from Herodotus where the Spartans talk about how great it is to be free men, that people who are slaves just can’t appreciate how great it is to be free, and that they would be willing to use axes to defend their freedom. (Axes in war being something that barbarians use.) It seems rather hypocritical to us but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/58 "2009-12-16T02:38:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > _A Man for All Seasons_ had a much larger inaccuracy. It left out the fact that More was genuinely guilty. Henry’s laws may have been unjust but they were laws and More repeatedly and knowingly broke them. The movie however makes him look like a wronged innocent. As you posted a while back in another thread: > [@"A Man for All Seasons" (1966)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-man-for-all-seasons-1966/480255/9): > > Another major inaccuracy is that they make such a major point that More never said that Henry was wrong. This is true but only in the narrow legalistic sense If it’s true, it CAN’T BE an inaccuracy. But what other sense would you prefer? Would you have prosecuted him simply because you knew what he meant? That was a major point of the play. Should we be doing that today? > [@](#): > > what the script never mentions is that More wrote several books in which he denounced Henry’s actions (albeit without mentioning the King specifically by name). If he didn’t mention the King, that was not treason and he did NOT break the law. And I’d be interested in the books and relevant cites. > [@](#): > > The script ignores this in order to make More look completely innocent and undeserving of his fate. The reality is that while the law was unjust, More was guilty of knowingly and repeatedly breaking it. He DID refuse to swear to the Act of Succession. The script does NOT ignore this. In the movie he even explains to Norfolk that imprisoning him for this was legal. But the reality was that he did NOT deny the King’s title in the legal sense required for treason. He was innocent of this and he was convicted and executed unjustly. If, as you contend, he broke the law, it’s up to you to explain why they didn’t prosecute him sooner AND had to rely on one person’s testimony AFTER he was sent to the Tower. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/59 "2009-12-16T16:56:32Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Another thing they got wrong was that Rasputin was never cast out by the Tsar, but remained a royal favorite all his life – and even after his death. When the Germans were winning WWI on the Russian front and everything was falling to pieces, Alexandra was writing letters to Nicholas saying, in essence, “If only our Dear Friend [Rasputin] were still with us! **He** would know what to do!” It was made by Fox. I’m settling for the fact they didn’t ‘accidentally’ refer to the character as Rasputin (D). ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/60 "2009-12-16T17:42:55Z")
As much as I loved **Apollo 13** , I’ve always been annoyed by one glaring inaccuracy - made worse by the fact that it was almost certainly intentional despite the filmmakers knowing otherwise. Kevin Bacon played Jack Swigert, the astronaut from the backup crew who is assigned to fly the mission a few days before the launch. Swigert is portrayed as somehow not quite up to the task, and later participates in a shouting match during the flight. In reality, the backup crews were given identical training to the prime crews. Swigert was perfectly capable of flying the mission. What’s more, he had specialized in command module emergencies and written much of the training materials on the subject. In fact, they were lucky to have him on that flight. And according to Lovell, there was never any argument of the kind shown in the film. I would otherwise have let something like this slide, but have always felt the film did an injustice to Swigert, who died in 1982. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348.md?page=4)