digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at movies.yahoo.com

Top 10 most inaccurate movies.

movies.yahoo.com — Top 10 list of the most inaccurate movies including Gladiatior, Braveheart, 300, and more.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • digginDigs, on 03/22/2008, -66/+15Interesting article. I learned a lot.
    • altrego99, on 03/22/2008, -12/+21Well, I am not a historian. I don't really give a damn to "historical inaccuracies", if the movies are physically sound, and good otherwise.
      • Intangible360, on 03/22/2008, -0/+14I agree to an extent, it depends on what is being claimed about the movie. If they're promoting it as historically accurate then that is what I'm going into a movie expecting to some degree.
        • Drahkar, on 03/22/2008, -4/+8True, but when was the last time you saw a movie claiming 'This is how it happened'. I can't even remember once. 'Based on a true story' is as close as they get and even with that people know that they've change it to make it more entertaining.

          Frankly I think the list was kind of stupid. As if the guy was just trying to find something negative to say about popular movies which is just a little bit pointless in my eyes. There are far more interesting and productive uses of one time than that.
      • andburn1, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7How can a movie be "physically sound?" What does that even mean? That your DVD isn't scratched?
        • altrego99, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Physics. It should be realistic to look at - especially the special effects.
    • altrego99, on 03/22/2008, -9/+72"According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP" ---?
      Come ***** on. This was a science fiction made in 1968. What the ***** do you expect? Predict the coming of Firefox and Ubuntu???
      • b3owulf, on 03/22/2008, -3/+21I'm pretty sure they put that in as joke....
      • egoherodotus, on 03/22/2008, -14/+8why don't you calm the ***** down, take a midol, and get jokes...
        • amadeusdemarzi, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Hehe, I thought the 2001 entry was friggin hilarious. A nice little 'easter egg' at the end. I don't understand why anyone could get pissed about it? :)
      • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -2/+18Their claims about 300 are also wrong. It WASN'T based on the real battle. It was a movie adaptation of a graphic novel inspired by a movie based on the real battle. At some point realism goes out the window in that exchange.
      • JettaMan, on 03/22/2008, -8/+6You know what stopped that dream from happening? Too many friggin social programs. We threw away about 40% of the national economy on useless government programs like giving handouts to various entities. If we could have a reasonable 15% tax rate, we would have so much more technology developed every year and consumers could afford to buy it.
        • Drahkar, on 03/22/2008, -3/+12Don't forget a $80 billion a year war on drugs that is just so effective of keeping our country drug free.

          Can you imagine how far into space we would be if we actually invested $80 billion a year into it? (If you never knew. The average budget per year for NASA at this point is roughly $280 to $100 million a year. Sad, huh?)
          • PeppermintPig, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9Imagine how far space exploration technology could have reached if we got rid of the war on drugs, war on terror, income taxes, and canned NASA after it started showing signs of not meeting it's mission goals (probably best if it were canned in the 80s). You'd have a hell of a lot more 'X Prizes' going on. More advances mindful of budget expenses.

            JettaMan: "If we could have a reasonable 15% tax rate"
            So you know what is reasonable for everyone else to pay?? I think it's reasonable for you to pay for the programs you wish to support.
        • busket, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1You know that most of the money spent on space exploration to date was spent by the American taxpayer via a progressive tax system? That current private space programs owe much of their technology to government funded space programs?
      • cos5000, on 03/23/2008, -1/+3why not throw some romero films on the list .. according to them the dead will rise and feast on our brains
    • H1tchh1k3r, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6no you didn't
    • Gravey9, on 03/22/2008, -2/+18terrible post, didn't learn anything.
    • Glugory, on 03/22/2008, -4/+12Too bad 300 wasn't actually based on the Battle of Thermopylae. It was based on a comic which was a highly fictionalized version of the battle. Anyone who can't see that that movie wasn't even supposed to be anywhere near realistic is just stupid.
    • rolmos, on 03/22/2008, -6/+2I literally LOLed at this.
    • agarfield2004, on 03/22/2008, -5/+1You can die from chickenpox?!?!
      • Niightwitch, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Yes, if the pox move to your brain it can cause inflammation, known as "chicken pox on the brain", which is 82% fatal.
      • spiffwalker, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Do you think that they had antibiotics 2000 years ago?
        • bitterbug, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Even if they did it wouldn't have helped with chicken pox, as antibiotics do not affect *viruses*.
      • celotil, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Chicken Pox, Measles, German Measles, and Mumps are those few diseases that are actually better to get while you're a child.

        They tend to affect adults much more than they do children, and can be potentially more fatal the older you are when you get them.
  • solid12345, on 03/22/2008, -10/+181Box office victors write the history.
    • JettaMan, on 03/22/2008, -4/+21...for 70% of the world who are idiots.
      • Drahkar, on 03/22/2008, -1/+33One day I saw a movie called 'Idiocracy'. I was entertained and moved on. Not too long ago I watched it again and suddenly realized that it wasn't just a movie but a foretelling of the future. Now I'm just sad.
        • OverlordXenu, on 03/22/2008, -1/+17It's like Brave New World, but even the rulers became stupid.
    • M4v3rIC, on 03/22/2008, -0/+13What about Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor???
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_(film)#I ...
      check the massive inaccuracies section.
    • r3zonance, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1What about Enigma too.
  • sjbdallas, on 03/22/2008, -9/+30I think i knew all of those were inaccurate (except for the queen elizabeth one)
    • piesforyou, on 03/22/2008, -3/+8I think I knew that 2001 was inaccurate. And I had forgotten all about freddie got fingered! Such a great film!!
      • OneLess, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7Space Odyssey is actually pretty good as far as relative realism goes, it's just that the time line was off.
    • kajoob, on 03/22/2008, -0/+42Most inaccurate movie of all time?

      The Neverending Story
      • drgmdp, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2"Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film The Neverending Story"
    • swiftekho, on 03/22/2008, -3/+24Does no one realize that 300 wasn't supposed to be historically accurate?
      • OneLess, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8That doesn't change the fact that it was.
      • ashlocke, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2I doubt most know it was even based on a comic, not history, book.
        • rspeed, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Are you talking to someone named Book?
  • phantomsoda, on 03/22/2008, -44/+19Wow !, Mel Gibson really likes to twist history in his movies, The Passion of the Christ should also be there...
    • DickyT83, on 03/22/2008, -23/+72Fictional stories aren't a part of history.
      • KaiUno, on 03/22/2008, -5/+6Ha! You just made my day :p
      • StealthyMong, on 03/22/2008, -10/+5Just like The Odyssey, has no impact whatsoever pertaining to history. Everyone make sure to believe Dicky because he was there and has evidence to disprove the existence of Jesus.
        • Murdats, on 03/22/2008, -3/+11were you there to prove it?
          how about this guy fred, lived 500 years ago and turned fields of wheat into fields of hookers with magic, and then became the greatest pimp ever alive.
          were you alive then to disprove his existance? no, so by your logic you must now believe in him
        • StealthyMong, on 03/22/2008, -10/+4no its called faith.. and sorry if I don't see eye to eye with an athiest douche
          • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -10/+7Faith by definition is a belief without evidence, even in the face of contradicting evidence (i.e. stupidity).
          • StealthyMong, on 03/22/2008, -6/+1is evidence considered truth or just a theory? If you can disprove the existence of God then I will agree with you
          • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -1/+11Theories are considered to be true until challenged by empirical evidence, at which point they are revised to account for all known phenomena. There is no such thing as absolute truth, our perceptions have far too many limitations to ever make that claim. Science is, in contrast to religion, rather humble in this regard and only claims to have the best truth possible based on current evidence. In regards to the existence of the supernatural, you are the one suggesting the existence of God. Therefore the burden of proof is on you.
          • Klaatu14, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4"Faith is believing in something you know ain't true" - Mark Twain
          • Murdats, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2"If you can disprove the existence of God then I will agree with you"
            so I can continue to pose the idea that according to your own logic you must believe in fred till you can disprove him?
            also how would you disprove god? the gaps he lives in are shrinking, but when you keep moving the goalposts then it becomes impossible for us to find the infinite amount of proof requred.
        • kelly, on 03/22/2008, -5/+3jm9206755,

          In the same way that scientists don't know factually that the universe started with the big bang theory... they look at other evidence that suggests that this theory may be correct. It's still very much something that requires a great deal of faith... not unlike belief in our origins as described in the Bible. There is considerable evidence that shows that Biblical "theories" (I call them this for your sake not because I believe them to be theories). Regardless, there is a major faith element in both understandings. The primary difference is that Christians acknowledge this aspect while the majority of the rest of the secular world does not.
        • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -3/+3It doesn't require faith. The qualification of all scientific inquiry is that we will be wrong eventually, most likely. When we find we are wrong we change our beliefs. In the end science does not claim that we will ever know THE truth because most likely we cannot know. There is no reason to assume some terminal endpoint to our theorizing. We just go deeper and deeper down the rabbits hole finding better truth than what we had before.

          EDIT: There are also greater standards for what is considered a theory in science. Nothing from any religious text qualifies.
        • macslut, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5All of you stop it now!

          Murdats, please tell us more about the magical field of hookers...
      • b3owulf, on 03/22/2008, -8/+14I tihnk pretty much the entire world agrees that Christ most certainly did exist, and they he was crucified. Everything else in the story may be fiction, but that's the case for every movie on the list aside from 2001.
        • Murdats, on 03/22/2008, -6/+7are you sure, some people may accept that he may have been a real person, but that is based off no fact except that the idea of the person is common place and maybe to be used as a compromise, as for him being real, show me references to his existance from outside religious texts.
          I mean for someone who caused such a stir and had such a following there should be lots of proof of him througout history.
        • Fxer, on 03/22/2008, -3/+3@Murdats
          Try Christianity and the Catholic Church.
        • theOster, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_christ
          check the "Historical Jesus" section. it's very different than the "theological jesus". and as far showing you proof outside of religious texts, thats prob not going to happen. think about the times - there prob weren't too many bloggers running around. documentation was done primarily by religions and academics.
        • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -5/+5Who cares what most people think, their belief does not make it true. Hell, most people still think that people really believed the Earth was flat until Columbus.
          • JimmySpaza, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1That's not true. The ancient Hebrews knew that the earth was round. Other ancient cultures such as the city-states in Greece knew that the earth was round. This was thousands of years before Columbus.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
          • RobotBuddha, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2That's his point. Most people today are unaware of what you just listed, and have a false belief that Columbus thought up the idea of a spherical earth.
      • kalrhael, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5 Who didn't see that one coming.
    • JimmySpaza, on 03/22/2008, -26/+10Jesus has more historical objective evidence supporting his existence than ANY person in ancient history. And this includes evidence outside the Bible too.

      Eat it, atheist.
      • jm9206755, on 03/22/2008, -4/+22By all means, present it.
      • juboodi, on 03/22/2008, -4/+12The Bible is a book, not evidence.
        • manicmailman, on 03/23/2008, -3/+3"On the Origin of Species" by darwin is just a book?...
          you dont read for evidence?
          pics or it didnt happen?
          • Murdats, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3yes it is just a book.however we also have evidence to support a lot of ideas that were stated in this book, can you present yours?
      • Jimmerz, on 03/22/2008, -3/+14Actually you are wrong about that. Jesus is entirely, and conspicuously missing from any histories written around his time.

        Eat it, whatever you are. Not that I care.
        • manicmailman, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1no he wasnt...
          why am i posting, who cares.... carry on..
        • DaffyDuck, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3"no he wasnt... "

          Proof?
      • ReidFleming, on 03/22/2008, -2/+17AFAIK, the only external writings that could remotely be construed as 'evidence' would be Josephus' redacted Antiquities. The Christian biblical scholars agree almost to a man/woman that the passages referring to Jesus were added later. Aside from that, there is no 'historical objective evidence' whatsoever. Granted, that does not make Christianity or the existence of Jesus untrue. There just isn't any contemporary writing. Not the gospels nor even Paul's writing as he admits he never met Jesus as anything but a spirit and the originals of his letters and writings are lost to time (if they every existed). Believe what you want but, if you want to argue your religion, you should know something about it.
        • JimmySpaza, on 03/23/2008, -6/+1This is not true. The early Christians in the 1st century who created the first books of the New Testament believed that Jesus was the Messiah who was resurrected. Archaeology and literary criticism and research have shown this to be the case.

          Dude, you really need to read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It, along with tons of other books, effectively refute this idea that the early Roman church changed the Bible to suit their needs.
      • SquigglyP, on 03/22/2008, -2/+6Even if there was proof of Jesus' existence (and I've no idea, really) it doesn't mean he was really the son of god. How many times have you heard that line from cult leaders since? None of you christians bothered to believe them, why should you believe this Jesus guy?

        There were tons of these so called 'prophets' and christ-like figures back then. They all had supposed super powers like walking on water, walking through walls, etc. None of them caught on, but for some reason Jesus got famous (tho I have theories, i won't go further into this garbage).
      • ihatea1sauce, on 03/22/2008, -3/+2zeitgeistmovie.com ?

        I'm prepared for your burying, do your worst.
      • TheMarenum, on 03/22/2008, -2/+9I used to eat it every time i went to church. Then i decided eating the body of christ was too creepy for me.
        • Niightwitch, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5But it's tasty.
          • drgmdp, on 03/23/2008, -0/+5no it's not. it tastes like styrofoam.
        • scy1192, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1what is a metaphor?
        • asdfkane, on 03/23/2008, -0/+4No, according to Catholics, during Transubstantiation, the Eucharist actually becomes the body of Christ. Read: NOT a metaphor.
  • xxJoyfulxx, on 03/22/2008, -13/+5Interesting to see the liberties they took. I would love to see a list of movies that are very VERY inaccurate from their BOOKS. Sure, movies are always changed/shortened from their literary version, but some wholly change the contents of the book and butcher a once-good story in favor of cinema. I would prepare such a list, but I'm too lazy.
  • Ganja420, on 03/22/2008, -9/+161Say what you want about Mel Gibson.. but the man knows screen play
    • heatmiser, on 03/22/2008, -2/+49Well, Gibson wasn't saying that the "The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors" He was showing the begiining of the end for the Indians' way of life. All that fighting and warfare amongst the tribes (actually the Aztecs not the Maya) would be moot in a few years due anyway.

      The film was not as innacurate as the list implies, and certainly does not belong on a list with 10,000BC !!!
    • theodenking, on 03/22/2008, -9/+4Forget Mel Gibson, all of Ridley Scott's films should be on there.
    • ireland88, on 03/22/2008, -7/+15"Say what you want about Mel Gibson.. but the man knows screen play"

      This is a south park quote by the way for the people above.
    • CColtManM, on 03/22/2008, -0/+8Mel Gibson does have 30% of that list covered.
    • slothlovechunk, on 03/23/2008, -9/+3Every one of those Mel Gibson movies blows, but I haven't seen Apocolypto, maybe that one won't suck.
      • HeroreV, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1It does. Or at least the small amount I forced myself to suffer through. Mel Gibson is the safe "wild man" for old grannies.
      • thecoolestguy, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Braveheart was excellent, Patriot was crap. Apocalypto was also excellent.
  • undy242, on 03/22/2008, -4/+13810,000 BC just looked god awful and ridiculous. Glad to see it on the list.
    • joegibes, on 03/22/2008, -0/+26The best part was how they WALKED from Wisconsin (think about it -- cold winters, corn) to Egypt in under an hour.
      • Garlik, on 03/22/2008, -7/+3Yeah, I agree that's a little bit of a stretch, considering who accomplished the feat, but if Chuck Norris was in the movie, it would most certainly be classified as a documentary.
        • mooseofshadows, on 03/22/2008, -2/+10CHUCK NORRIS DOES NOT WALK, HE PUNCHES THE GROUND UNTIL IT MOVES UNDER HIM.

          Seriously, this random spewing of Chuck Norris comments is getting old.
    • alanmanquero, on 03/22/2008, -4/+2also horses and mamuts....not a good combinations....
    • DrWednesday, on 03/22/2008, -3/+210,000 BC WAS god awful and ridiculous. Glad to see it on the list.
    • crowbar77, on 03/22/2008, -2/+4I duno i thought it was a pretty good comedy. Sure it wasn't meant to be, but i laughed through most of it.
    • kwulf, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3at the end, the african guys give maize (corn) seeds to the cavemen dudes...maize wasn't introduced into Africa until the 15th century....so they were just 11,500 years off on that one.

      its beyond me how on earth they walked thousands of miles in a couple weeks

      mammoths existed in northern europe. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they captured them in norway and "flew" them down to egypt

      egyptian pyramids didn't start until about 3000 BC ....7,000 years off

      even the movie itself was kinda boring.
  • TimmyA, on 03/22/2008, -2/+272Except 2001 is the most accurate depiction of space travel in any film yet made. *sigh*

    And they did damn well considering it was made before man even landed on the moon. Though I guess it's going for historical rather than scientific accuracy, it still irks me.
    • dn11, on 03/22/2008, -3/+143an accurate depiction of space travel and the moon - before we had ever set foot on the moon. buried for putting 2001 on ANY list with the likes of 300 and 10,000 BC
      • elnerdo, on 03/22/2008, -2/+32How about a list of movies whose titles are a number:
        300
        10,000 BC
        2001
        etc.
      • b3owulf, on 03/22/2008, -13/+4Seriously, don't group an absolutely boring with action movies.

        Disclaimer: I've got 2001 on blu ray right over there on my shelf, but I would watch 300 over that almost any day. Unless I was trying to take a nap. I also have no intention of ever seeing 10,000bc
        • lesosso, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7the question being: do we care what movie you like?
    • jbags5, on 03/22/2008, -9/+4Most Accurate? I'd have to go with Apollo 13...
      • TimmyA, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1It's not bad, but lets itself down with the ludicrously inaccurate "manual correction burn" scene.

        Besides, in a general artistic sense I tend to ignore it, as it cowers under the towering monolith that is "2001: A Space Odyssey"
      • scarwars, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3The Right Stuff..
    • adrianmonk, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3I noticed that too. The digg summary is what's at fault here. The title of the actual article clearly says "Most Historically Inaccurate", and the article is narrowly focused on just that.
    • noumuon, on 03/22/2008, -8/+3yea... because everyone knows how psychedelic the trip to jupiter is.
      • Kyderdog, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1That wasn't the Trip to Jupiter... That was a trip thru the Stargate (the monlith)
        Remember..."My God its Full of Stars"?
    • goblindegook, on 03/22/2008, -1/+118Not to mention 2001 isn't based on (more or less) historical events like the others. Criticising it for being inaccurate on things that hadn't happened yet is absolutely retarded.
      • tolbs, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7Thank You! I completely agree that it is an injustice to include 2001 on this list, but the text under the masthead had me rolling.

        "According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong."

        I think this is more of a statement that we as humans failed rather then the movie's projections of our future.
        • Kyderdog, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Sadly the Future came and the batteries where not included...
      • theRIAA, on 03/23/2008, -2/+1***** yahoo
    • LaughingDjinn, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9I still get a great laugh when at the start of the film they are offering each other cigarettes while waiting in the space station for their flights.
      • brycelb, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I can't watch it anymore because of "sticky shoes"
    • riskybeats, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13Thats like making a booklist with Mark Twains book's and 1984, and then calling them inaccurate. *head asplode*
    • Sephaa, on 03/22/2008, -1/+10To be honest the movie might have been more accurate and we'd have all those things today if governments put more money into space exploration and things that matter rather that fighting friggin wars all the time.
    • MrManiac, on 03/22/2008, -1/+13This goes on the Top 10 Most Inaccurate Articles on Digg.
    • diggonit, on 03/22/2008, -2/+21Any moron that would put 2001 on a list like this clearly has his head placed firmly and completely into his anal canal. So if they would have named the movie 2101 you would have been fine eh? Idiot.
    • GrantTLC, on 03/22/2008, -9/+4Did IQ's drop sharply while I was away?

      Every person in this thread that has complained about 2001 being included in the list has totally - and I mean completely and utterly - missed the point behind it's inclusion:

      IT.WAS. A. GODDAM. JOKE!

      Read the ***** thing again, retards! That's why it's last! That's why it's the only ***** film in the list that isn't a 'historical' setting! That's why he starts talking ***** about Freddy Got Fingered! This is it, boys and...boys, time to pack up your keyboards and go back to mindlessly masturbating to pictures of sheep. Or at least stick to commenting on YouTube.
      • diggonit, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1ummm, wrong retard.
      • riskybeats, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Aren't jokes supposed to have some sort, no matter how dismal, of humour in it? I think you just an idiot. And technically 2001 is a historic date, not future, making my argument that you are an idiot more sound proof.
        • BradHAWK, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2"Joke" isn't the right term. It was meant to be ironic. GrantTLC had the right sentiment, however overpassionately.
          • GrantTLC, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Yeah, I should probably apologise for the tone of that comment. I'd had a bad day and reading all the 2001 comments here just tipped me over the edge. I should watch that in future...heh. But thanks for defending the sentiment behind the rage. :)
        • GrantTLC, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0@Riskybeats: No, sorry, you're still a retard.

          Technically, 2001 is a historic date, yes, but it wasn't WHEN THE FILM WAS MADE. Every other film in the list depicts events that happened many decades or even centuries PRIOR to that film being made - they had the option of historical research but chose, for various reasons, not to adhere too closely to that history.

          When Kubrick and Clarke got together to write the screenplay for 2001 they had to rely on Clarke's interpolation of the future - a prediction, basically an educated guess. THAT makes the film's inclusion a non-sensical irony taken in the context of the other 9 entries - perhaps even a tribute to 2001 because the conceit of the article, that of criticism of the films for not holding to their historical reality, is REVERSED in this instance: rather than mock the film, the author MOCKS THE REALITY THAT OCCURRED INSTEAD (Freddy Got Fingered?). Ergo, the film is a BETTER depction of the year 2001 than the one we actually got - therein lies the joke, an ironic reversal of the rules established in the previous 9 entries.

          I win. :)
      • kingUssop, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Yep, it was a joke, I'm not sure how people are missing that.
      • ryanpoleary, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Nobody really likes the "Did _________________ dumber while I was away" bravado. It conjures up the false idea of the digg community giving a ***** about where you go or what you do.

        Sure, the list credits more to the movie (for being so optimistic) than it satirizes, but you're just looking for someone to belittle, either for diggs or for your own self-satisfaction, without being really funny, clever or blunt.

        The list is Yahoo!, by the way, which might even indicate it not having any substance or sarcasm, and people are just overanalyzing. I don't know why it got so much attention.

        Buried. You, and the article.
        • GrantTLC, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0You seem to be doing a spot of over-analyzing here yourself.

          The *only* reason I posted was to draw people's attention the the fact that moaning about 2001 being in the list was missing the point. That's it. 'Period', as Americans would say. It just got to me that after 90+ comments no-one seemed to have noticed the intentional irony of the piece; the fact it was ripped-off of Cracked.com was also another HUGE clue to the fact it was not originally meant as a serious and sober examination of innacuracy in film, and yet all I saw were people bitching about the article being 'lame' and possibly offensive to Clarke's memory for including 2001.

          There was no pimping for Diggs or any such nonsense; I couldn't care less how popular I am here. I may have been a touch over-zealous in my defense, and I've been rightly criticized for that - I'll bear that in mind for future posts.

          Oh, and my opening line was my own wee homage to Aliens. Ripley's de-briefing by the Welyand-Yutani Board in the opening scenes is a classic piece of cinema, and seemed appropriate in the context. Call that my own sense of humour. :)
    • flano1, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Yes where is Lord of the Rings on this list?
      • r3zonance, on 03/22/2008, -2/+1Well, seeing as the whole of the "Lord of the Rings" is FICTION, it is impossible for the films to ever be accurate.

        The article is about misrepresented facts you 'tard.
        • Petrushka72, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Wow, you mean "2001" *wasn't* supposed to be fiction?
          You 'tard.
        • booshack, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1/facepalm

          Yeah I agree, "Science fiction" is not fiction. Way to own yourself with the caps and calling flano1 a "'tard".
    • KidVicious, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I think Apollo 13 had a pretty accurate depiction of space travel.
    • Lukesed, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1The least accurate space movie had to be the Astronaut Farmer last year. Worst part was, it pretended to be realistic.
      • JohnFlux, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0Out of interest, what exactly was inaccurate? If I remember the story correctly (and be gentle on me - I don't remember it that clearly), he 'only' reaches outerspace, orbits once, and comes back - it doesn't state the height exactly, so say about 100km. None of this is totally unreasonable to believe that a dedicated person could manage to do.
        • Lukesed, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Much more problematic is the equipment back at the farm. First of all just watch a video of a rocket launch, the whole place would be burnt to a crisp, including the house and any hot wives that happen to be residing in it. And the fuel just sitting in a tank, completely ignoring the enormous climate control system needed for that stuff. Let's not even go into the "oh no, I don't have enough rocket fuel so I'll just mix together some kerosene and ethanol or whatever" part.

          And the government. Oh, the government. Go look at what happened in Waco over small arms, do you really think they would allow the guy to build the sort of thing that could blow up the town if it went wrong, or be an ICBM if it worked, with no inspections of inside or really even outside the rocket?

          Again, I don't have a problem with science fiction but the movie had an air of "this is how it would actually go", topped off with the Jay Leno appearance at the end.
          • JohnFlux, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0I dunno - most of your points seem mostly nit-picking. Okay so the shed didn't burn down etc.
            As for government inspection - well what about the x-prize? That was encouraging individuals to build rockets exactly like the one shown in the film.
            Googling around, other people have pointed out that the descent angle was wrong (he comes in too steep) but with a more shallow descent angle he would have been fine. But mostly there doesn't seem to be any particular flaws - just a few 'nitpicks'.
          • Lukesed, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1But the stuff I pointed out is what really matters. Nitpicking is criticizing the trajectory.

            "That was encouraging individuals to build rockets exactly like the one shown in the film."
            You really think they just let random people (he could fly a space ship so he MUST know how to build one) nail stuff together and pump high explosives into it? The government had nothing to do with the X Prize, why would that make it easier to build a rocket without tons of redundant inspections and such?
          • JohnFlux, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Nasa (a government organization) are teaming up with the x-prize foundation to encourage individuals to build sub-orbital rockets. For example:

            http://www.theregister.co.uk /2005/10/13/nasa_fund_xprize/

            Also Bush signed in a law to guarantee a license to individuals that want to launch a spacerocket, and remove all safety regulations for such rockets unless "specific design features or operating practices result in a serious or fatal
            injury". The FAA have repeatedly said that they want to be as flexible as possible to try to work with and encourage individuals to persue space travel ( http://www.space.com /news/tourism_hearing_050210.html )

            (remove spaces from urls - I hate digg)
          • Lukesed, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Well seeing the rocket crash and burn the first time in the movie I don't think it would fit in with that guideline.
          • JohnFlux, on 03/23/2008, -0/+0Hah, true. But in the movie, didn't he launch illegally? (I don't remember it all that well)
          • Lukesed, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1If I remember correctly he was in debt and he rushed launching it before they could take his stuff away? Something like that.
    • cannonball, on 03/22/2008, -0/+31984 is pretty inaccurate.
      • Kyderdog, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1yeah it was about 20 years too early
    • coredump0x01, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1For all we know, HAL 9000 could've been Arthur C. Clarke's foretelling of GLaDOS.
  • amanilaenvelope, on 03/22/2008, -11/+7joel schumaker batman films dont count?
    • brycelb, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Probably because Batman was not a historical character. Just guessing though.
      • amanilaenvelope, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1inaccurate because no batman in history until his films has had nipples on their suits
  • Reedan, on 03/22/2008, -18/+353Err 300 was based off of a graphic novel, not actual historical events.
    • banmaster, on 03/22/2008, -20/+28The graphic novel was based of events that are belived to have occurred (well, except the bopttomless pit, giants and lack of a coherent plot and good acting).
      • Murdats, on 03/22/2008, -3/+13'based off' not 'a true story' or a retelling of the actual story.
        its like how you get fantasy stories that use their setting as a real battle, but people start throwing around fireballs and whatnot, you dont critisise it for being inaccurate even if it uses a real battle as the setting.
    • Murfshay22, on 03/22/2008, -6/+92I don't get why people point out that 300 was inaccurate and over the top. Of course it was. It was being told by a guy who was trying to get 10,000 troops ready for battle. Why not tell them that the enemy sent the biggest, most vicious warriors at them and yet, 300 Spartans still held them back? It makes them much more optimistic about their chances.
      • Blandyman, on 03/22/2008, -3/+12Why is Murfshay being dugg down? His comment makes perfect sense... it's exactly what happened in the film.
      • jamdogg, on 03/22/2008, -1/+18"This Is GLASGOW!!!" "Tonight we dine ON HAGGIS!!!"
        (i.e king leonidas probably didnt have a scottish accent)
        • bassmangracey, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2He probably did not speak english either.
      • xNIBx, on 03/22/2008, -2/+21Actually, 300 spartans(and around 1000 thespians) did repel(delay would be a better word) the persian army. And that did happen because of superior training, superior armour, superior weapons and choice of battlefield. This isnt a bed time story, IT IS A HISTORICAL FACT. And that is what makes this story awesome.

        Just because it seems unrealistic to you, doesnt mean that it didnt happen. Sure it didnt quite happen like in the film(persians didnt have rhinos, grenades, etc and spartans wore full body armour), but it did happen. And it happened many times, on greek vs persian battles. How do you think Alexander the Great conquered Persia? He utilized those superior battle tactics/equipment/training and beat persian armies a lot bigger than his(even on open fields).
        • elipabst, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7Surprising much of if it is backed up by historical fact as well. They've found evidence of a massive barrage of arrows at the battle site and a number of the memorable quotes from the movie are straight from Plutarch and Herodotus. For example, the "we'll fight in the shade" quip is from Herodotus and the "Come and get them" line when told to surrender there arms is on the Leonidas monument at the site. The most memorable part of the trailer where they kicked the Persian emissaries down the well/hole happened too. Granted they took artistic license with some of it, like 30 foot tall giants and monsters, but I think that pretty clear that those parts are fake.
        • Castronaut, on 03/22/2008, -5/+8Saying that it is HISTORICAL FACT because Plutarch wrote about it is like saying that Jason and The Argonauts is fact because Homer wrote about it. Historians frequently exaggerated in their tellings of battles, especially to boost the image of their own countrymen.
          • xNIBx, on 03/22/2008, -1/+6Plutarch didnt write about the battle of Thermopalae(Herodotus did) and there are many historical evidence about the battle. But thanks for playing.
          • kodax, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2Not saying it didnt happen that way because history is always so murky but wasnt Herodotus known widely as the father of lies? Much of what he writes in his Histories seems like fantasy fiction.
          • elipabst, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Homer was a poet whose stories were based on historic events. Herodotus is generally regarded as an actual historian who went around and got peoples accounts of events. Something like that is always subject to someone's interpretation and exaggeration, but that isn't any different than how "history" is recorded today. Short of having video footage, his accounts are as much historical evidence as one can have for a large number of events that took place during that period, such as the battle of Marathon. If you wanted to make an actual documentary for the history channel, you'd be using Herodotus as your source. In fact, I've seen several documentaries on the history channel and they do use Herodotus.
        • p2a1x7, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7I couldn't tell you how Alexander the Great conquered Persia... all I got out of that movie was that he likes boys... a lot.
          • xNIBx, on 03/22/2008, -2/+10Even if he was gay, conquering the "entire" world, makes him more of a man than you would ever be.
          • p2a1x7, on 03/23/2008, -1/+1xNIBx, Have you seen "Alexander"? Him being attracted to men was the focus of the movie, not his military genius. And it's nice to know that you think being gay makes someone less of a man.
        • scrag10, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Even your numbers are wrong, if you believe wikipedia (I do). Alot more people would have been battling then just the spartans. 300 is a godly movie though, and never claims to be fact so FTW!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
        • unorginalityftw, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I thought the Thespians were civilian soldiers (farmers, smiths, etc), not professionals unlike the Spartans? Which ultimately made their decision to stand and fight [especially since their culture didn't revolve around it like the Spartans] much more brave and idiotic...
      • mugsoh, on 03/22/2008, -1/+8Except that Alexander the Great was from Macedon, not Sparta.
        • xNIBx, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3Many Greek cities/kingdoms had hoplite armies and utilised similar tactics with similar equipment. On the battle of Platea(where the Persians were finally defeated), Alexander the First(ancestor of Alexander the Great) took part. At first he was forced to ally with the Persians but then he helped the other Greeks by warning them about when the final attack would occur(and finally his army did kill a ***** load of persians).

          From then on it was obvious that greek military tactics, training and equipment were a class on their own. And later on, Philip the Second(Great Alexander's father) utilised and refined those tactics to pretty much conquer all Greece(since Sparta and Athens screwed each other so bad during the Peloponesian War). The same tactics were used by Alexander the Great to conquer pretty much everything.
    • adml_shake, on 03/22/2008, -2/+25I was under the impression that being told from the Spartan side of things that this was how things (kinda) looked to them the first time they ever came across these animals and fighters.
    • klisejo, on 03/22/2008, -2/+21300 huh....I don't think you can call something inaccurate that wasn't trying to be accurate in the first place. real events->inspired folk lore->inspired paintings and statues->inspired comic book->inspired movie 2000+ years later.
    • PaddyUK, on 03/22/2008, -3/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
    • deviationer, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2yep, graphic novel that frank miller created after seeing an old movie about the events in 300 and the novel is his take on those events.
    • diskit, on 03/22/2008, -4/+7Who ever didn't know this already is a total retard.

      Iran, I'm looking at you.
    • Begz, on 03/22/2008, -2/+20Saying 300 is historically inaccurate is like saying the Smurfs are historically inaccurate.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9In reality they were really more of a greenish blue.
    • wrzhydr, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Plus Xerxes being 8 feet tall is just the viewer how powerful he is, in a sense. Larger than life.
    • tikidrummer928, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2i loved the graphic novel but i like the movie. who cares about scientific accuracy. just enjoy seeing a bunch of badass dudes beat the hell out of some people.
  • pudgyv, on 03/22/2008, -26/+52Do you go to movies to be entertained or for a history lesson?
    • banmaster, on 03/22/2008, -4/+39Yes
    • solis365, on 03/22/2008, -1/+26Are you not entertained?!
    • jayfarer, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Regardless of how you answer it, the list isn't saying, "Inaccurate movies suck," it's just pointing which ones are the most inaccurate of all.
  • hollywoodphony, on 03/22/2008, -26/+222I have to agree about Passion of the Christ. The Jesus in that movie wasn't even black.
    • amanilaenvelope, on 03/22/2008, -1/+29never heard of the reply button?
    • Deanblackoak, on 03/22/2008, -30/+19Jesus (if he had indeed existed) would not be "black" if by black you mean African America or African. He would be Middle Eastern with dark skin (not white and blonde as painted by many). He would not have been black in the way modern American society has defined it. This is just another way people warp history. But like I said, it's highly improbable that he even existed.
      • lovestospooge, on 03/22/2008, -1/+12**woosh**
      • executorzz, on 03/22/2008, -11/+44Dude Jesus existed. It is definitely accounted for by the Romans. Whether he is human/god/prophet though is up to you.
        • jimmy17, on 03/22/2008, -3/+10There are no first had accounts for Jesus even in roman records.
        • kodax, on 03/22/2008, -2/+10No record of Jesus in any Roman records..and they were good record keepers. This is in fact very odd considering his exploits as written in the new testament.
        • JCPahl, on 03/22/2008, -2/+5Where is Jesus in the Roman records? And don't say Tacitus if you know anything at all about the subject.
      • Blandyman, on 03/22/2008, -7/+33On top of the "woosh", yes, Jesus had indeed existed. He was Jewish and wen around spreading the Jewish faith before he was crucified at the call of Pontius Pilate in 37 AD.
        Whether he was the son of God or otherwise is what's "debatable."
      • hollywoodphony, on 03/22/2008, -3/+17Yeah, I definitely mean that Jesus was African-American. Seriously, did that make any more sense when you typed it out?
        • mashw, on 03/22/2008, -6/+7Well then don't use the term black inappropriately if you don't want to be corrected. You wouldn't call a middle eastern person black.
          • hollywoodphony, on 03/22/2008, -4/+18I would if their last name was "Black." Don't tell me what to do, that's racist.
        • avengingturnip, on 03/22/2008, -10/+13Jesus was African-American? Let's see. He was not African, clearly being of the house of David of the tribe of Judah. He also was not American since that would have put him on the other side of the world from Palestine. Two strikes. Care to try for three.
          • jamdogg, on 03/22/2008, -3/+13Collossal fail.
            hollywoodphony couldnt have been more sarcastic if he was getting paid and yet you swallowed it as literal.
          • Timmyftw, on 03/22/2008, -5/+3Hey everyone look how smart avengingturnip is. ooooooh so impressed and the snide attitude ooooh. I mean a strike system is the epitome of being an *****.
          • avengingturnip, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2@Timmy,
            Aggressive issues much? The strike system is an indication of a light-hearted post.
        • Deanblackoak, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1Oh, boy. Come on... when you say black... ahh what exactly do you mean? Middle eastern? African American? Native American? Huh? Black means something different in America than it does in the rest of the world. Do you not understand cultural nuances? So, exactly what did you mean, good sir? African American, Native American, Middle Eastern, etc? Do tell? Please! Or are you just spreading a part of the myth that makes Jesus appear real by giving it some silly basis in truth? Don't try to hide behind what you assume is the ambiguity of a word. You don't understand what the word means in a literal color sense or a cultural sense. I guess you just didn't think before you typed.
      • protodon, on 03/22/2008, -5/+6Jesus is is the just the "modern" day version of hercules. So if jesus existed then so did hercules, but seriously, hercules was much cooler.
        • Gryphon09, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Except Hercules did cool stuff like fight the Hydra. And clean stables!
    • executorzz, on 03/22/2008, -13/+6Jesus is not black. For one he was a Jew living in a Jewish stronghold during the time.
      • ubrikkean, on 03/22/2008, -1/+3I have a friend that is a black Jew. They aren't mutually exclusive.
        • Vodka2389, on 03/22/2008, -1/+7I have a friend who is a black Caucasian.
          • ubrikkean, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Meh, my friends that are both call themselves black for the sake of minority benefits like scholarships and whatnot.
    • jdk63chem, on 03/22/2008, -7/+1Obama was not available!
    • GoldenPearl, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Jesus wasn't black. Yes, he was dark, but dark doesn't mean black. Look at the people that occupy the holy land today. Those people are dark. They are not black.
      • Bersy, on 03/22/2008, -3/+1Umm I take it you aren't aware he was Jewish then. Jewish people are pretty light skinned.
    • mCanada, on 03/22/2008, -2/+5NOBODY *****'s with The Jesus!
  • altessa, on 03/22/2008, -14/+1I liked this list... pretty entertaining. We don't go to the movies to watch documentaries, now, do we? I'd like my dose of unrealism, thank you. I especially liked the last on about 2001: A Space Odyssey. You wouldn't be able to find a more inaccurate movie than that.
    • drgmdp, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1maybe the being fiction thing has something to do with that
  • deeboe, on 03/22/2008, -2/+231Most of these movies are inaccurate on purpose! You are telling me that in 300, a huge beastly retarded lookin ***** in chains with swords things for hands didnt exist? Sonofa...
    • Jawoodyablowme, on 03/22/2008, -6/+24Not to mention that the Spartans were homosexuals. The only time the Spartans slept with women was when they had to have a child.
      • FasterGun, on 03/22/2008, -1/+28Er, I thought they made that quite clear in the movie......
        • ancalagon73, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7I do not remember the movie saying that the Spartans were gay. Leonidas mentioned that the Athenians were "boy-lovers" and if they turned the Persian army down then how could the Spartans. Something to that effect.
          • Sornos, on 03/22/2008, -0/+20You weren't paying attention enough. They made gay jokes through out.
            "Watch my back!"
            "Not during battle!"
            *raucous laughter and ass slaps all around*
      • Niightwitch, on 03/22/2008, -0/+5Yes, historically the Spartans were known as sword-swallowers throughout the East.
    • link5280, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2Yes.... it was on film it must be 100% accurate!
    • chrishirsch, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0i was ready to see star wars and lord of the rings on there too
  • ricky125, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7should be on the list: Birdman of Alcatraz, the movie is too old I guess... I like the movie, but the real Robert Stroud(played by Burt Lancaster), was a vicious killer and a psychopath.
    • EmerilLIVE, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Wrong, psychopath's would never get the chance to become vicious killers if they were incapable of acting somewhat normal, they'd be in a mental institution. That's the thing about being crazy, you don't know you're crazy, so you act somewhat normal most of the time.
  • tnatharik, on 03/22/2008, -3/+9While reading this, the top 10 upcoming movies caught my attention http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/mostanticipatedof2 ...
    • screwfanboys1, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3dugg for linking to the article and not to another digg submission of the article.
  • oneoverzero, on 03/22/2008, -2/+59I agree with all of them except for 2001. Yeah, things didn't end up that way, but if we go by that, then any fictional movie is inaccurate.
    • link5280, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4"...then any fictional movie is inaccurate"

      I would agree with that :)
  • DeepFriedFetus, on 03/22/2008, -9/+97I really don't think 2001 should be on the list - it was a science fiction movie, not a historical prediction. Something like Harry Potter could just as easily be put on that list, but, like 2001 (as much as I hate to compare a ***** book about wizards with an incredible peice of timeless art), it's just fiction. No one ever said "This is exactly how its going to be in 2001".
    • gplpark92, on 03/22/2008, -0/+12And while not accurate in fundamental ideas like space travel and such, they got a lot of little specific things right, for example, LCD Screens, Glass cockpits, International Telephone Numbers, Computers beating Humans at Chess, and Personal In-Flight Entertainment.
    • Viriatus2, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4yeah in fact 2001 should be at the top of the most accurate science fiction movie ever!
    • Serris, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3That's an indicator that this is a ***** list.
    • zoltamatron, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1I think maybe you missed the point of 2001 being on the list....it is supposed to be FUNNY....

      Nobody that wrote that list thinks that 2001 was meant to be an accurate depiction of today....
  • jonnymj, on 03/22/2008, -1/+26The Spanish in Apocalypto were most definitely not saviors, they were there to show us that despite the main characters heroics the life he knew and fought for was over.
  • nepdogg, on 03/22/2008, -2/+10Unless one is going to view a "documentary" film, one must always know that the film is in large part, fiction. While there may be historically accurate elements to these films such as costume, architecture, language, or technology, etc - These elements are used to instill the highest level of "suspended disbelief" as possible in order to engage the audience in the story being told.
    Documentaries are also cannot be taken as accurate, because even these non-fiction films are made to follow the vision/opinion of the director.
    All that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed many of these films. Real history rarely ends the way Hollywood would like it to.
    • Sverre, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3While I agree that the films are all fiction, some of these films pretend to be historical. They give the impression that they tell the real story of the real historical characters they portray, but this is often far from the case. In this way, they distort people's perception of what what really going on. (I think Mel Gibson's films does this in particular.)

      If you wanted to make a completely fictional film in a particular historical setting, you could easily do that by making up the main characters, and then no-one would be in any doubt over the historical value. However, more often than not, these films take historical characters and make up completely new histories around them.
    • jdk63chem, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1You mean that Martin Sheen was never the President?
  • l3itchplease, on 03/22/2008, -11/+19makes me happy to see 3 mel gibson films up there
    • tony23, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1True - he's a lousy documentary producer.


  • sfcaptainrob, on 03/22/2008, -7/+16Surprise, surprise...lot of Mel Gibson movies on this list.
    • Railz, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2If Independence day is bad for wanting to infect an alien mothership with a code written on a Mac, then Signs was horrible for presenting an alien race 'allergic' to water that wanted to conquer a planet that has 75% water, and atmosphere full of ***** H2O
  • spidoman, on 03/22/2008, -1/+30Most of this is stolen from a fairly old Cracked article:
    http://www.cracked.com/article_15014_11-movies-sav ...
    • raquel9e, on 03/22/2008, -1/+5Ummm, I doubt it was "stolen." It's not really that original of an idea.
    • blackopsfreak06, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I'm with spidoman on this one...this looks a lot like regurgitated ideas to me
    • mewho, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1having gone back and read the cracked article: buried for plagiarism.
  • talan64, on 03/22/2008, -4/+23Well, since I watch movies for entertainment, and not for a history lesson, I guess this is pretty irrelevant.
    • undy242, on 03/22/2008, -0/+6Eh, I'd rather these movies at least respect the history of the subjects they choose for their films rather than completely butcher it. Most people will think these events actually took place if the film states, "Based on true events" or if it has historical contexts.
      • BenLilly, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0By "Most people" you mean the totally ignorant ones? With most of these movies all you need is a general knowledge of the history in the movie and some common sense to see that they are not accurate. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any movie on the list saying "Based on true(or actual) events"
  • HyperJack, on 03/22/2008, -2/+48There are a lot of WWII films that could be added to this list. Because contrary to popular Hollywood belief, the Americans did not win the war single-handedly.
    • eManna, on 03/22/2008, -1/+34In "U-571", markedet as a movie "based on a real event", a group of Americans saved the day by capturing the German Enigma. Truth is no Americans were involved at all in the capture og the Enigma. The, perhaps dull, truth is that some polish mathematicians cracked the code from their office in England.
      • tinotheelf, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2So.... how many Polish mathematicians does it take to crack the German Enigma?
    • barkus, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Windtalkers, Enemy at the Gates, Pearl Harbor, U-571 can't think of anymore but they should be considered action/adventure movies based in historical settings.

      That's something that always bothered me, why the ***** does Hollywood need to exaggerate things like actual historical BATTLES, they're not exciting enough as they were?
      • CarzorStelatis, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3Where Eagles Dare, WWII film with the Nazis flying an _American_ helicopter that didn't exist until 1947
      • Railz, on 03/23/2008, -0/+3This bothers me too. I'm sorry but Pearl Harbor made me weep. Only good, 'historically accurate' WW2 show was Band of Brothers. The Company in that HBO Series existed and actually did win battles they should have never won.
    • blueloop68, on 03/23/2008, -1/+2How many times have i read online "Yeah, well we saved your asses in WW2" or some variant over the years. A lot of Americans are poorly informed about history, but they sure know their movie trivia...
  • therealbht, on 03/22/2008, -3/+6Braveheart was based more on William Wallace the hero in Scottish folklore, rather than the historical Wallace. But it doesn't matter, anyway. Historical dramas aren't supposed to be history lessons, which most people understand.
    • avengingturnip, on 03/22/2008, -0/+9And the narrator at the beginning indicated very clearly that the movie would not be accurate to written history.
    • beloitpiper, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3"which most people understand" - No, they don't. There are still people that think William Wallace wore a kilt, and that the Irish helped him fight the English, and that his son was Edward III.
      • therealbht, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0Of course, you're right that people often walk away misinformed. All I meant to say was that most people understand that movie directors take certain liberties with historical content, minus whatever the correct or incorrect details might actually be.
  • LaGStAr, on 03/22/2008, -1/+4Brutal, lets see if we can point out all the inaccuracies in the article.
  • alkaline6, on 03/22/2008, -4/+0"Inherit the Wind" should be on the list.
  • borez, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1Enigma
  • robotbling, on 03/22/2008, -4/+11buried for being a yahoo article
  • imants, on 03/22/2008, -0/+135Why isn't Return of the Jedi on this list? Everyone knows that a) Princess Leia wasn't actually on that mission to the forest moon of Endor, b) The Ewoks with their primitive weapons inflicted far fewer casualties on the stormtroopers than depicted in the movie and c) Wicket the Ewok was born 3 months after the battle took place. There's no way that he was the Rebels' guide.

    Am I missing anything?
    • katrink, on 03/22/2008, -1/+0No, you rock...pass the popcorn!
    • diskit, on 03/22/2008, -0/+20I think that you're forgetting that C-3PO was actually viewed to the Ewoks as a God of Death, worshiped out of fear.
    • groberts1980, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1And that the star destroyer Executor is listed as having docked at Coruscant a month after the battle, so it couldn't have crashed into the Death Star.
  • kurkpeterman, on 03/22/2008, -3/+12There is this movie called "What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?" and it has to be the most inaccurate, misinforming movie I've ever seen. At one point they try to put forth that because Native Americans hadn't seen ships before, they wouldn't be able to see or understand them (this is some sort of convoluted analogy they're trying to make). It is plain horrible and is the worst film I've ever seen ever! Period. Also, it's very inaccurate.
    • macslut, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, that scene was pretty funny. Also the other one where they showed that ice crystals formed differently based on feelings they were exposed to, without acknowledging that all ice crystals form differently. Still, if you can laugh off the BS which is 99.99% of the movie, there is the basic point of the movie which holds true and is good advice...keep a positive attitude. However, if you're retarded, and never made it to upper elementary school, believing the stuff the movie presents mostly doesn't cause any harm and leads to "keep a positive attitude".
    • blueloop68, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1HaHa... my roommate tried to get me to watch that movie. She believes in ESP, healing crystals, palmistry, tarot and just about anything you can think of that throws the scientific method out the friggin window. Didn't watch it...
  • britblogger, on 03/22/2008, -2/+33Why is 2001: A Space Odyssey included in that list? 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies... when it was made it wasn't a movie based upon history, but rather the future, and therein lies the irony of the article itself - it too is inaccurate.


    • SLockhart, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Yet another misuse of the word irony. Now that's ironic.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Especially since it was a science fiction film. 1984 didn't happen either...
    • CanceledCzech, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1Took the words right out of my mouth. I mean, all except for the irony part.
  • Syphon8, on 03/22/2008, -14/+2300 is pretty damn accurate. The only things changed were stylistic, and Spartan aversion to pedastry. The whole story was true save one name.
  • camaroz06, on 03/22/2008, -4/+7BOO and buried for putting 2001 on that list of mostly ***** movies.
  • kurtwinter, on 03/22/2008, -0/+132001's inclusion really annoyed me. The only inaccuracy in the whole film is the depiction of what happens in a vacuum, according to badscience anyway. More to the point, the film wasn't a depiction of historical events, it was a fantasy. One that, in light of private suborbital space flight, an international space station, and proof of organic compounds on alien worlds, seems more and more likely every day.
  • dygel, on 03/22/2008, -0/+24Putting 2001 in there was a cheap shot, and really terribly timed. Arthur C. Clarke has, over the course of his career, turned out to predict the future with most uncanny skill. Fundamentally, though, he was a science fiction author. Picking on Kubrick's film of his novel thaty was written 33 years prior to 2001 is just disrespectful of the man's achievements and contributions to modern fiction.
  • uncoveror, on 03/22/2008, -2/+3Not one of these flicks is a documentary. Nerds in mom's basement whining about how "That's not real" only ruin movies for themselves, not for me.
    • Ganja420, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2HOW DO U HAVE A DOCUMENTARY OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPEND BEFORE CAMERAS????????
  • avengingturnip, on 03/22/2008, -2/+11Why wasn't Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" on the list? That had to be the most historically inaccurate attempt at a Crusades movie ever made. It got nothing right.
    • Railz, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2Dunno, I think it portrayed the knights Templar pretty decently.
  • Klydethegreater, on 03/22/2008, -0/+11Not one American western?
    • Railz, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2No one really knows what happened out there ;p
  • zmigliozzi, on 03/22/2008, -4/+4Talk about nit picking. I really like to see when people try to show how "terribly" inaccurate 300 is and it comes down to the cosmetics of the movie, how pathetic.
    • judicar, on 03/22/2008, -0/+2The only thing really accurate in 300 are the names of some of the Spartans and some of their lines, which are all taken from Herodotus' "The Histories". In reality Leonidas died midway through the battle, the Xerces had him mutiliated and crucified I think, this enraged the Spartans and they fought their way into the Persian ranks to retrieve his body. Something like 3000 Greeks accompanied the Spartans and fought through most of the battle, but were sent back towards the very end. It's one of those stories where the truth really is stranger than fiction.
    • ricepicker4000, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2300 was based more off the comic book than what actually happened. Stfu kid ur out of ur element
  • MoistVonLipwig, on 03/22/2008, -3/+3Uau! So fantasy movies are not historically accurate ? Thanks for another front page ***** digg
    • cos5000, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1agreed ... useless digg is useless.... they might as well have put some romero films on the list
  • macdaddy357, on 03/22/2008, -4/+4I haven't seen 10000 BC, but feel I should point out that the dates of traditional Egyptology were cooked up by young earth creationists who thought that nothing existed before 4000 BC. Why does anybody still take their dating of ancient things seriously?
    • kodax, on 03/22/2008, -1/+2I dont know why you are being dugg down. People need to look into the rain water damage on the Sphinx and think again.
    • Petrushka72, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Er, because you're talking complete bollocks. There are no dates of "traditional" Egyptology. You have multiple alternative possible chronologies (though they're all pretty close to one another), and new alternatives pop up every few decades as more data emerge. It's called "history", and the process of revising models based on new data is called "science".
    • Frustian, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1It wasn't just the pyramids, it was the entire ridiculous of the movie.
      1) Some Tribesman from a mountain had pants, yes they had leather pants, in 10,000BC.
      2) Everybody had perfect skin, I really doubt that without even running water they could have perfect skin.
      3) In 3 days they walked from snowy mountains, to a rainforest, to a desert, then somewhere that appeared to be Cairo.
      4) I'm tired of writing this list, believe me it was bad.
  • Deaus, on 03/22/2008, -3/+4According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.

    3 years old at time of death... 7 years later she had a baby...

    Eww.
    O_O
    • johnnysaucepn, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1What are you talking about?
      • pennvneff, on 03/22/2008, -1/+1He's talking about Braveheart you dumb *****.
  • helloretro, on 03/22/2008, -1/+14there are movies that are way more inaccurate, this article is ***** stupid.
  • Niubai, on 03/22/2008, -0/+7Anytime the subject "inaccurate movies" appears, my first memories is from the biggest hacker of the world: The guy who coded a virus for an alien OS. He learned the alien language and invaded the alien LAN to deploy a potent virus that would PHYSICALLY destroy all the spaceships in a matter of minutes.You know who's the guy ... he's my hero.
    • coreoption, on 03/22/2008, -0/+3That and he is well-educated on chaos theory. Oh, and DINASAWS
    • jdk63chem, on 03/22/2008, -0/+0Ironically the article comments on that "accuracy" in the critique of 10,000 BC
    • tinotheelf, on 03/23/2008, -0/+2To be fair, the virus only disabled the shields. Drunk Randy Quaid showed the world how to destroy the spaceships. And that's why Drunk Randy Quaid is MY hero.
  • gregdbowen, on 03/22/2008, -0/+4Sparticus' true story is even more unbelievable than Ridley Scott's portrayal. He managed to not only defy his captors, but went on to raise and lead an army against the Roman legions, fought his way to freedom, and then came back for more, in the end only to be betrayed by pirates. The whole thing ended gruesomely with 6600 of his men strung up on crosses along the Apian way (ancient I-5)
    • JorgeGT, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1dugg for "ancient I-5"
    • Syphon8, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1I AM SPARTACUS.
    • JCPahl, on 03/22/2008, -0/+16,600 crucified... those Romans sure didn't ***** around. Jesus. (pun intended)
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 03/22/2008, -4/+7It's Hollywood, what do you expect? Real history doesn't put asses in the seats.
    • pennvneff, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Not true at all, it's just a lot harder to do.
    • Petrushka72, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1"Real history doesn't put asses in the seats."
      How would you know? No one's ever tried.
      • Railz, on 03/23/2008, -0/+1HBO does it pretty well. John Adams (recent) is pretty dead on and Band of Brothers (WW2) has to be the 2 best accurate series I've ever seen.
  • JimSwarthow, on 03/22/2008, -0/+1Apocalypto was as accurate a depiction of Mayan culture & society so far in film. (2 old friends from college who have PhD's in Mezo American anthropology said so, not me) - why people continue to try and believe (apologize) the Mayan's were peace loving hippies is really beyond my scope of understanding. as if they have some sort of vested interest in the ancient Mayan's reputation???
  • ZeRux, on 03/22/2008, -2/+2Buried as inaccurate for not mentioning Jurassic Park - the dinosaurs never existed.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.