Films that ARE historically accurate.

[mooperman]

Inspired by the braveheart thread just below and watching Public Enemies last night it got me thinking, what films ARE historically accurate, i'm not sure i could think of any.....

I was reading the wiki page on Public Enemies and it seems whilst a lot of the events are accurate (to a degree) they are mostly in the wrong order....

so what can you guys think of..??

[Pecker]

There ain't no such thing.

If you want 'the thruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', you'd need to follow the action round with a documentary film crew, and even then you could completely change things with the edit.

At best, any film can only be said to be 'based on true events'.

Of course, some are more accurate than others, but there are no truly accurate films, only different degrees on inaccuracy.

Steve W

[mooperman]

Just racking my own brain here, but what about Apollo 13....

Of course when i said accurate i didnt mean to every minute detail, just that hollywood didnt take to many ridiculous liberties with the story a-la U-571..

[doug56hl]

what films ARE historically accurate, i'm not sure i could think of any.....

Titanic?
A Bridge too Far?, a few of the historical advisors were involved in the actual events and I think Attenborough would have tried to give a fairly truthful rendition of the story.

[spann3rs]

Band of Brothers? Not really a film I suppose...

[RickDastardly]

Good idea for a thread

Haven't seen it yet, but what about Frost/Nixon...did that remain true to actual events?

[RickDastardly]

Band of Brothers is a good shout, especially in terms of actual events, battles and those involved.

[Rambo John J]

Originally Posted by RickDastardly

Good idea for a thread

Haven't seen it yet, but what about Frost/Nixon...did that remain true to actual events?

according to the real David Frost they made a lot of changes to effectively turn him into an underdog out of his depth, which is the way hollywood likes its hero to be.



history is always written with some kind of bias to it so, personally, I doubt there's any such thing as anything at all that's historically accurate because it's all just collections of facts filtered through some scribe's opinion. Places and times might be right but that's about it (in my opinion), and if it's been translated from ancient texts or even just foreign languages, that's where things get even sketchier.
From what I've read, Zulu's pretty accurate, and Waterloo aswell, but what I read could obviously not be entirely 100% accurate. The actual military actions/skirmishes/battles in Band Of Brothers were meant to be spot on too

"historically accurate" and "cinematic" don't often sit well side by side.

[andy1249]

From what I've read, Zulu's pretty accurate, and Waterloo aswell,

Im sorry but I have to laugh there , seeing as how this thread got started , with the english bashing going on in braveheart , now it swings over to the only accurate accounts being ones where the spirit of British Derring Do is shown to be victorious ..... come on .... please

Zulu is about as historically accurate as the Matrix , anyone prepared to read up on the subject will quickly find out that the VC's awarded for Rourkes drift were an exercise in propaganda used to deflect attention away from the disastrous defeat that morning .... and nothing like what was depicted in the movie.

That aside though , I still think its a great movie , a lousy history lesson , but a great movie nonetheless

[RickDastardly]

I think war films can be pretty historically accurate and cinematic at the same time (that's the frightening nature of war I guess). I assume it is also partly out of respect to the veterans that they try and stick to what actually happened. I know We Were Soldiers was pretty accurate about Hal Moores lot engaging regular NVA for the first time. Same could be said about the battles in other war films like Hamburger Hill, 9th company etc.

P.S. Not even going to mention U571!!

[Rambo John J]

Originally Posted by andy1249

Im sorry but I have to laugh there , seeing as how this thread got started , with the english bashing going on in braveheart , now it swings over to the only accurate accounts being ones where the spirit of British Derring Do is shown to be victorious ..... come on .... please

Zulu is about as historically accurate as the Matrix , anyone prepared to read up on the subject will quickly find out that the VC's awarded for Rourkes drift were an exercise in propaganda used to deflect attention away from the disastrous defeat that morning .... and nothing like what was depicted in the movie.

That aside though , I still think its a great movie , a lousy history lesson , but a great movie nonetheless

exactly why I had the rest of the sentence (that you didn't quote ) about what I read may not have been entirely accurate. Which sums up history to a tee - it's always written by the winners, and they always leave out facts and details that don't fit with the opinion that's being expressed. History only tells us what the people writing it want us to know, and films aren't historical documents, they're entertainment

[nwgarratt]

I don't get why U-571 gets mentioned so much. I have no problem with it. If anyone watched the extras they mention they took more than one aspect of the war and put it in the film to make a action film (which it succeeded) not a history film. The biggest flaw is they never said the enigma machine was the first in the film like so many people say The US did get hold of one in the war later on.

They did however change how the U571 was destroyed. It was sunk off the coast of Ireland. I found that out afterwards so it didn't stop me enjoying the film.

I don't want too much history in films. I want to be entertained not bored to death.

[philbam]

I watched 'Gandhi' on blu the other day and thought that was pretty accurate regarding the history/ timeline of the area at the time.
Darn good film too!!

I too enjoyed 'U571' as well, accurate or not.

[gregww1]

Originally Posted by RickDastardly

...I know We Were Soldiers was pretty accurate about Hal Moores lot engaging regular NVA for the first time. Same could be said about the battles in other war films like Hamburger Hill, 9th company etc.

Yeah, We Were Soldiers is very accurate, just a few things changed for artistic reasons...an evocative story too, especially as the chap who is pictured on the front of the book (can't remember his name) was a Cornishman who was also the chief of security at the WTC and died whilst helping over 2000 people get to safety...a real hero.

[captainarchive]

How about

1984

2001 A Space Odyssey


...not.

I'm hoping 2012 is just as accurate.