How historically accurate should historical movies be?

[Techno-Druid]

Mel Gibson's movies like Apocalypto and Braveheart. While it may seem like having a movie in Maya adds an extra layer of authenticity to the films, I think it may give people the impression that films like Apocalypto are historically accurate.

Focusing on Apocalypto specifically, the movie has a pretty inaccurate portrayal of Mayans. The opening hunting scene of the movie betrays a group of Mayans or another Mesoamerican people hunting a tapir, which contradicts the Ancient Mayan lifestyle and most Mesoamerican cultures at that time which were largely agriculture. The appearance of the tribe itself portrays them more as some isolated neolithic Amazonian tribe rather than the intricate society where women dressed more conservatively. That's not even the worst inaccuracy of the movie.

In my opinion at least, movies that are based on history should strive to be as accurate as possible (ala Dances with Wolves) or just flat out throw away everything and create a fantasy movie (ala 10,000 BC) but when you try to be both, 9-times-out-of-10 you just end up with something awkward to anyone aware of history.

Maybe it's just me, I'm a very nitpicky person when it comes to movies, but am I wrong for wanting historical films to be at least semi-historically accurate?

EDIT: Removed the mention of the Passion of the Christ as looking it up it's a biblical drama, I just ignorantly assumed it tried to be historically accurate (as accurate as a biblical story can be).

[Techno-Druid]

Uh, not sure what you're on about. The Passion of the Christ isn't a historical film. Apocalypto's hunting scene was accurate. The Mayans most assuredly hunted tapirs.

I assumed the Passion of Christ was supposed to be both a historical AND a religious film.
The Mayans hunted and gathered, but they were primarily an agricultural people so meat wouldn't be consumed to the degree that crops would. The staple crop and food of the Mayans and many Mesoamerican peoples was maize.

The hunting scene itself isn't an issue, the portrayal of the tribe as loin-cloth wearing hunter-gatherers is.

[Sliske]

They should get the over all story , but sprinkle it with shit people like in movies, such as heroics or love stories. War movies are great for this

[Deleted]

I assumed the Passion of Christ was supposed to be both a historical AND a religious film.
The Mayans hunted and gathered, but they were primarily an agricultural people so meat wouldn't be consumed to the degree that crops would. The staple crop and food of the Mayans and many Mesoamerican peoples was maize.

The hunting scene itself isn't an issue, the portrayal of the tribe as loin-cloth wearing hunter-gatherers is.

Um, you seriously think the bible stuff is historically accurate?
It’s made up mumbo-jumbo to hoodwink persons of impaired mental facilities.
Jesus Christ....

[Lex Icon]

it's all in the wording. "this is a true story", "based on true events" etc.

[Techno-Druid]

If it was supposed to be historical they'd have to base it on some actual historical documents. The only thing they based it on was Gibson's bigoted views of the bible.

And what tribe are you talking about now? Because the Mayans were part of an empire...

I changed the OP and I was specifically talking about the Yucatec Maya. I can't find anything that states that any of the peoples of the Mayan language family were more hunter-gatherer inclined.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, you seriously think the bible stuff is historically accurate?
It’s made up mumbo-jumbo to hoodwink persons of impaired mental facilities.
Jesus Christ....

Do I think the bible itself is historically accurate? No.

Are there real life events that were recorded in the Bible and other religious writings with half-truths? Yes.

My fault for not clarifying.

[bladeXcrasher]

I must have missed the "this is a historical portrayal" in any of Mel Gibson's films. I was quite certain they were for entertainment value the entire time.

[Deleted]

The problem comes when movies try to prevent themselves as historical fact, as offering some perspective on a time period or particular historical figure yet in reality are so divorced from the truth of the matter it is farcical. Many films are marketed as historical because it lends a sense of respect to those stories that would be a long, hard, expensive process to do otherwise, something that Hollywood, for the most part, wants to avoid at all costs.

In my book there are 2 ways you can make historical films, either a) you play it as close to the truth as is feasible or b) you use the background and setting of some period to tell a story that while not necessarily true, bring some perspective to the historical context.

Making a 'histoical fantasy' type film like 10000 BC is a fine goal, just don't pretend like it has any basis in reality.

[Mad_Murdock]

Mel Gibson's movies like Apocalypto and Braveheart. While it may seem like having a movie in Maya adds an extra layer of authenticity to the films, I think it may give people the impression that films like Apocalypto are historically accurate.

Maybe it's just me, I'm a very nitpicky person when it comes to movies, but am I wrong for wanting historical films to be at least semi-historically accurate?

EDIT: Removed the mention of the Passion of the Christ as looking it up it's a biblical drama, I just ignorantly assumed it tried to be historically accurate (as accurate as a biblical story can be).

I'd like it to be as accurate as possible and then add flair from there (side stories that don't really matter to history). Don't show a squadron of fighter planes flying in and saving the day, when there weren't any planes used at all. Of course, there are limits and such that may require some adjustments, but I think they should stick as close to what we know is true.

Else stick a sign on it that says, "This is a fictional movie, set in a historical era"

[Independent voter]

Movies aren't accurate, they are made to entertain.

Was listening to the historian who's book was the inspiration to Hamilton and he was pointing out where the writer of the play had to make changes to history to fit the play and there were quite a few.

Hamilton's time is well documented and only what 240 years ago?

Braveheart is 1297 and Apocalypto is prehistory. Passion of the Christ is 30AD?

[Krigaren]

If a movie is based/centered around a historical figure or event, it should be as absolutely historically accurate as possible. Titanic is a great example of this.

However, movies like The Patriot or Braveheart are garbage from a historical perspective since it twists, invents, or outright ignores history in order to make it a blockbuster.

- - - Updated - - -

Was listening to the historian who's book was the inspiration to Hamilton and he was pointing out where the writer of the play had to make changes to history to fit the play and there were quite a few.

Depends on the changes. Obviously Hamilton didn't rap, and obviously he wasn't a black man, but if everything else about the play - including Hamilton's historical contributions - were correct and accurate, the rest of the artist flourish is unimportant.

I haven't seen Hamilton, so I'm not sure what exactly was changed beyond those things.

[Grimbold21]

[Risale]

If you want to make a historical movie then try to be accurate.

The worst one of recent years that well was so demented and far fetched was U-571.
It was so historically wrong that the UK should have funded a big-budget revenge epic, in which a small platoon of foppish yet plucky Brits swans over to Vietnam in 1968, defeats the Viet Cong, and wins the war. Moreover, it would be nearly as accurate as this.

[Blamblam41]

I'd say make it as 1:1 as possible while also keeping a flowing narrative. The problem with history is that a lot of the times there are actions taken or orders given that don't make a lot of sense, or events that are completely missing.

When it comes to a movie, what matters more than historical accuracy is the flow of the movie. However there is a fundamental difference between a historically accurate depiction and a historically sourced film. Making your own adaptation of history or shuffling the events around to make everything work better falls more under the latter, where as docu-films fall under the prior.

[Techno-Druid]

Yucatec Maya is a language, not a people. And all Mayans hunted. So, yeah, them showing a scene with hunting isn't in any way inaccurate.

Yucatec Maya was both a language and a specific population of Mayans. Generally languages are representative of distinct groups, although they may belong to a greater ethnolinguistic group (i.e. Germanic, Mandinka, etc).

You're also not getting the point. It's not that they hunted a tapir that is inaccurate, the fact that they're presented as hunter-gatherers.

Please provide a single example of the Bible recording a real event with half-truths. I will wait.

I admit you got me there. Although I would probably ask @Kalis, he knows WAY more about the Middle East than I do.

[Blamblam41]

Yucatec Maya is a language, not a people. And all Mayans hunted. So, yeah, them showing a scene with hunting isn't in any way inaccurate.

Please provide a single example of the Bible recording a real event with half-truths. I will wait.

Please provide a single example of the Bible recording a real event with truth in general.

I'll wait.

[Rotted]

Eh to a point,

Lets use the titanic film

We heard fragments of a story from a survivor from her point of view and had access to things like ship design, passenger lists, survivors etc. to make the back bone of the film. But theres a lot in that film which is based on assumptions. For example the old couple accepting their fate and staying in bed or the officer who shot someone and then themselves ( believe that was never recorded in anything official?) but those are likely scenarios that could of occurred.

Now, lets look at the kids version of the titanic - the animated titanic, full of talking rodents, a giant squid, a gang of sharks being hired by the bad guy to sink the titanic, oh and in the first one (thats right I said first, theres three of the fucking things) a pinch of beasality , Obviously historically inaccurate and offensive and never should have been made.

[Independent voter]

Eh to a point,

Lets use the titanic film

We heard fragments of a story from a survivor from her point of view and had access to things like ship design, passenger lists, survivors etc. to make the back bone of the film. But theres a lot in that film which is based on assumptions. For example the old couple accepting their fate and staying in bed or the officer who shot someone and then themselves ( believe that was never recorded in anything official?) but those are likely scenarios that could of occurred.

Now, lets look at the kids version of the titanic - the animated titanic, full of talking rodents, a giant squid, a gang of sharks being hired by the bad guy to sink the titanic, oh and in the first one (thats right I said first, theres three of the fucking things) a pinch of beasality , Obviously historically inaccurate and offensive and never should have been made.

Speaking about the Titanic, one of the survivors wouldn't go to baseball games because the roar of the crowd reminded him when everyone went into the water.

I'm not sure how he survived, maybe he was a kid.

But can you imagine everyone screaming at the top of their lungs when they hit that cold water? Damn.

The roar isn't in the movie I take it?

[Rotted]

Please provide a single example of the Bible recording a real event with truth in general.

I'll wait.

I can't remember the name of the book, but theres one out there which has a scientific break down of every single event in the bible and it explains how each one could of happened. For example lighting hitting the bush causing it to erupt into flames, a 'small' tsunami in the red sea when it talks about parting etc.

Regardless, if your religious or not, the bible is based on historical events, even if they are all bat shit crazy stories by some hermit in the hills. I think it's fair to class any film based on it as historical

[Techno-Druid]

Eh to a point,

Lets use the titanic film

We heard fragments of a story from a survivor from her point of view and had access to things like ship design, passenger lists, survivors etc. to make the back bone of the film. But theres a lot in that film which is based on assumptions. For example the old couple accepting their fate and staying in bed or the officer who shot someone and then themselves ( believe that was never recorded in anything official?) but those are likely scenarios that could of occurred.

Now, lets look at the kids version of the titanic - the animated titanic, full of talking rodents, a giant squid, a gang of sharks being hired by the bad guy to sink the titanic, oh and in the first one (thats right I said first, theres three of the fucking things) a pinch of beasality , Obviously historically inaccurate and offensive and never should have been made.

Hey now! Are you telling me there wasn't a rapping dog on the Titanic!?

In all seriousness I basically agree with you. I don't mind historical films with fictional characters that take some artistic liberties. I just don't like movies trying to portray themselves as historically accurate or basing themselves in a historical period and drizzling in a few things to 'authenticate' the setting while shitting on almost everything else.