What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Artist

[The Wook]

I've been wanting to post this thread for a while, ever since The Artist came out a year ago, and decided to do so today, after reading Solo4114's annoyances over the anachronisms in History Channel's The Vikings.

Sometimes anachronisms and other historical inaccuracies bother the Hell outta me. Actually, I'm most offended by a movie I've not actually seen. lol The Artist, the recent movie about the first talking pictures. The film received all kinds of awards, but I REFUSE to see it, because of the egregious anachronism in the movie's trailer.

The song is Louis Prima's Sing, Sing, Sing, which wasn't written until 1934, and brought into prominence (by Benny Goodman) until '35-'36. The song in many ways ushered in the new and unique sound of the Big Band/Swing era. So why is this a problem? Because the movie The Artist takes place in the late '20s, several years before Swing music was born.

I understand why they used Sing, Sing, Sing in the trailer, because it's one of the catchiest, most memorable songs of all time, and they were relying on the ignorance of the movie-going public to not know any better. But my Dad brought me up on Big Band music, so I knew, and I'm appalled. It's tantamount to having an Elvis Presley song in a trailer for a WWII movie.

Here's the trailer. The song Sing, Sing, Sing is played from 0:00 to 0:25, and then again from 0:55 to 1:21. They even identify the year as "1927" on the screen when the trailer starts, and they show the protagonist dancing to the beat of "Sing, Sing, Sing". UGGHHHHH! It pains me to even show you the trailer, but here goes...

The Artist Trailer 2011 HD - YouTube

So what anachronisms (or other historical inaccuracies) in films or tv shows annoy the Hell outta you?!

The Wook

ps~BTW, to anyone who's seen The Artist, please put me out of my misery and tell me that the film, at least, ends after 1934. My understanding is that it does not come close to that year, or the Big Band era...but I'd be at least a little bit relieved to learn otherwise.

EDIT: And here's another question for you...what's the biggest, most egregious movie/tv show anachronism or historical inaccuracy, that you don't give a hoot about, and love the film or show regardless? For me, that's easy, Gladiator. Gladiator is one of my Top 10 favorite films of all time. And my favorite scene in the film is when Commodus murders his father, Emporer Marcus Aurelius. I love it because it's riveting theater...but that all it is...theater. The actual Roman Emporer Marcus Aurelius was NOT murdered by his son Commodus. Commodus, when old enough, was crowned Co-Emporer with his father, and became sole Emporer when his father died of natural causes. But even though I love Roman history, and am normally a stickler for such inaccuracies, I don't care at all about this one, because the movie, and that scene, both are too awesome!

 

[Wes R]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

The commercial for the new Jackie Robinson movie where they have rap in the background, nearly everything about Pearl Harbor including the fact they got at least one time of Japanese plane wrong.

 

[Reelo]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

As someone who studied archaeology/prehistory, without hesitating I'll name 10.000BC
I've never seen that movie but hearing/reading about it always makes me nerdrage.
Even writing this I can feel my anger rise... :banghead:

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

"We´re making a movie, not a documentary!" I´ve heard that one quite often from a director ...

If an element fits the overall art work, then why not use it. I´ve made my peace with movies like League of extraordinary gentlemen and Around the world in 80 days when it comes to e.g. inaccurately chosen vehicles.
The soundtrack of a movie nowadays is very often completely separated from the other layers of a moie, if the song fits the mood then it´s not important if it´s not a contemporary song in that particular scene. If it breaks any rules that a movie´s set up in itself, that´s something different, but if one creative decision is repeated read "creative concept" then I don´t have a problem with stylistic mixes.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

The "Scientists believed that detonating an atomic bomb could ignite Earth's atmosphere, but they did it anyway!" excuse. Complete and utter hogwash!

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Flyboys...

What a load of garbage that film is. I think the only accurate part of the film is that there was a World War!

I remember going to see it in theatres pretty excited because WWI arial combat is a big interest of mine. Left thoroughly disappointed. It was bad to the point that I couldn't even shut down my brain and enjoy the effects.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Rather than discuss a specific film/show's historical inaccuracies (which I've done elsewhere already), I'll say that my biggest issue with that is more related to a particular type of inaccuracy.

In general, I tolerate modern language and, in SOME cases, modern concepts popping out of historical figures' mouths. It depends on the specifics, though. Certainly, I don't quibble over modern...hmm...behavior, I guess you could call it, coming from such characters, as long as it's not so over the top. Or if it IS over the top, it's done that way on purpose.

For example, A Knight's Tale is purposely made modern as a stylistic choice. Fine and dandy. It makes no secret of that fact. But, if you were presenting the story as otherwise serious, having characters behave that way would...irk me.


Really, what bugs the hell out of me is audience manipulation and taking the audience's ignorance for granted. "They're too stupid to know otherwise," basically. Some stuff, like technical details about weapons, are less of a big deal to me (e.g. MP-40s appearing in Raiders of the Lost Ark). Yeah, it's anachronistic, but I get why they're there (visual association with Nazis, easier access to them than MP-34s for prop depts.).

Other stuff, though, like screwing with dates or mixing eras is just...lazy and it pisses me off. Like, say, claiming that you're telling an historical tale about Robin Hood, setting it around the time Magna Carta is signed, and sticking everyone in high gothic style plate armor. Which would be the equivalent of having a film about Gettysburg featuring a division of M60 main battle tanks. You're at least 100 years off in your technology.


Ultimately, it's THAT attitude that pisses me off the most. "The audience is too dumb to know." That, to me, is insulting, and also a lazy excuse to screw up what should otherwise be pretty simple stuff to get right.



I suppose it also depends on how the production is putting itself forward. Is it claiming to be remotely historically accurate? Is it suggesting it depicts REAL events? Or is it saying "look, this is pure fiction, set during some approximation of an historical era and that's it"? I'm not gonna freak out if you show Romans in post-Marian-Reforms units during a pre-Marian-Reforms story, if you're ALSO making it clear that the whole thing is totally fictional and not to be taken all that seriously.


But if you're suggesting that you're some authority on the subject, that you're trying to tell a reasonably accurate historical tale (taking maybe only a few liberties) and you botch basic stuff, particularly with the "Who cares? The audience is stupid" attitude, that pisses me off. And it pisses me off doubly when it works and goes unchallenged.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

In general, I tolerate modern language and, in SOME cases, modern concepts popping out of historical figures' mouths. It depends on the specifics, though.

This is my biggest complaint about modern Doctor Who. I love the show but it drives me absolutely up the wall.

 

[AdamNightmare]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I don't know if it counts as anachronism, specifically, but a lack of technical Engineering knowledge is always annoying to me - especially surrounding the power system (my field of expertise).

For example, in Live Free or Die Hard:

I can accept that Bruce Willis can ride a fighter jet, until such a time as he rides a falling overpass through explosion after explosion, slides approximately 200 feet down, lands perfectly without a scratch, and then walks away from the whole ordeal.

What I cannot accept is that a single substation being taken out of service (even when blown up) will take out the entire Eastern Seaboard. THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

(look, you guys have your historical facts, I have my volts and amps)

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

(look, you guys have your historical facts, I have my volts and amps)

lollol

Fair enough man!

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Totally legit. Although, frankly, the rather free hand taken with physics in Live Free or Die Hard was tough even for me to swallow...and I was a political science major in college!

The next time the producers want to do a film like that, I encourage them to personally leap out of hovering helicopters about 30 feet above the ground, and then land on asphalt and run away like it's no big deal. You know, right after their shattered legs heal.

 

[Wes R]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Rather than discuss a specific film/show's historical inaccuracies (which I've done elsewhere already), I'll say that my biggest issue with that is more related to a particular type of inaccuracy.

In general, I tolerate modern language and, in SOME cases, modern concepts popping out of historical figures' mouths. It depends on the specifics, though. Certainly, I don't quibble over modern...hmm...behavior, I guess you could call it, coming from such characters, as long as it's not so over the top. Or if it IS over the top, it's done that way on purpose.

For example, A Knight's Tale is purposely made modern as a stylistic choice. Fine and dandy. It makes no secret of that fact. But, if you were presenting the story as otherwise serious, having characters behave that way would...irk me.


Really, what bugs the hell out of me is audience manipulation and taking the audience's ignorance for granted. "They're too stupid to know otherwise," basically. Some stuff, like technical details about weapons, are less of a big deal to me (e.g. MP-40s appearing in Raiders of the Lost Ark). Yeah, it's anachronistic, but I get why they're there (visual association with Nazis, easier access to them than MP-34s for prop depts.).

Other stuff, though, like screwing with dates or mixing eras is just...lazy and it pisses me off. Like, say, claiming that you're telling an historical tale about Robin Hood, setting it around the time Magna Carta is signed, and sticking everyone in high gothic style plate armor. Which would be the equivalent of having a film about Gettysburg featuring a division of M60 main battle tanks. You're at least 100 years off in your technology.


Ultimately, it's THAT attitude that pisses me off the most. "The audience is too dumb to know." That, to me, is insulting, and also a lazy excuse to screw up what should otherwise be pretty simple stuff to get right.



I suppose it also depends on how the production is putting itself forward. Is it claiming to be remotely historically accurate? Is it suggesting it depicts REAL events? Or is it saying "look, this is pure fiction, set during some approximation of an historical era and that's it"? I'm not gonna freak out if you show Romans in post-Marian-Reforms units during a pre-Marian-Reforms story, if you're ALSO making it clear that the whole thing is totally fictional and not to be taken all that seriously.


But if you're suggesting that you're some authority on the subject, that you're trying to tell a reasonably accurate historical tale (taking maybe only a few liberties) and you botch basic stuff, particularly with the "Who cares? The audience is stupid" attitude, that pisses me off. And it pisses me off doubly when it works and goes unchallenged.

Sadly a the directors and such are right; most people in a modern audience really are that dumb. They just want to see stuff explode and don't care about accuracy because they can't find their own state on a map let alone anything historical over 5 years ago.

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I know. And it pisses me off.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I hate it when the hair doesn't fit the time period.

I hate it even more when a character experiencing less than ideal circumstances, their wardrobe reflects these circumstances, but the hair/makup do not, still looks perfect.

 

[Monkey67]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Nothing will ever be perfect, some issue at hand are nothing more than Blah stuff that trips your P.O mode. They are out to tell a tale, show effects, have people enjoy the moment away from their dull normal lives. It is what it is and will never change. Bottom line is as the Wu-Tang Clans would say "Dollar dollar bill ya!" Look at what it did for Micheal Bay..Ugh what a job he did at killing childhoods.

My P.O trigger is when a person is changed out to be a different race or gender. Plus making a love story out of a baddy with a good guy that never happened. AKA G.I. joe movie.

 

[Rotwang]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I was watching 13th Warrior the other day and I noticed that nobody had a shaven head or sported dreadlocks which is the current staple of "ancient and medieval" hairdos, just like the "Moe" bowl haircut was the standard in every classic Hollywood film.

Perhaps what bothers me most is the disregard most movies show for the period they try to depict, especially when they introduce thoroughly modern ideas like the "get rid of the Gods" theme in Clash of the Titans or the "ending slavery" in Spartacus. Although I must admit that Spartacus is a politically relevant tale for our age, while CoT was just one more unnecessary remake.

Another thing that gets me is the overabundance of pyrotechnics in Ancient and Medieval films. Seems everybody back in the day had access to "Nitro-napalm" fireball throwers, making you wonder why somebody bothered about inventing gun powder in the first place since you had stuff that was way more combustible and effective ...

 

[Bigdaddy]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I've given up on any movie that proclaims to be a historical dramatization, the problem I encounter is so many people take the film as "fact" it makes it hard to have a discussion with them after. A friend of mine saw JFK years ago and said "now I finally know the truth!" facepalm
I haven't seen Lincoln yet, DDL is really the only draw to the film for me.
If a story is well told, acted, directed, etc I can forgive technical or historical flubs:
I watched part of Excalibur last night (netflix disc froze 1/2 way through:angry) that movie makes no attempt at accurately portaying the time the fable originated, but it's such a "fun" telling I never think about when plate mail came into common use plus it has a Starship Cpt and a Jedi!:cool

On the other hand when a story is poorly told I get bored and start to pick at details: Nick Fury leaping from a helicopter like BW in die hard,(I didn't know HE was a super hero:facepalm)

 

[Solo4114]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Exaclibur is pure fantasy and makes no pretenses to be otherwise. By contrast, King Arthur, from around 2003, was supposedly "historically based," except....y'know....not really. Same with the Russel Crowe Robin Hood film. Supposedly historically based but, again, not so much.

 

[EvilRocketeer]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

Erin Brokovich......her law firm billed their clients excessively and kept a large sum of the money....about 133 million......people are still trying to sue the law firm to get some of it back

"Not all of the victims were happy with the amount of money that they were given. After being billed an extra $10 million for undetailed expenses and having to wait nearly six months after the $333 million had been deposited by PG&E, many of the victims were unhappy with the sum of money that they had been rewarded. The lawyers determined this sum confidentially by various factors, including the severity of their ailments. On average, this came to $300,000 per victim, as stated previously. Some did receive several million. Others received less. For example, Dorothea Montoya received $60,000; Christine Mace got $50,000; Lynn Tindell $50,000; Tiffany Oliver got $60,000. Plaintiff Carol Smith argued, "It didn't make sense why my husband, who's had 17 tumors removed from his throat, got only $80,000." After the residents, including Smith, were told that their awards would be based on their medical records, some claimed that their medical records were never looked at, "...no one ever looked at my medical records," said Carol Smith. "I'm sure of that because my doctors told me so after I asked." As a result, some of the plaintiffs appealed their settlements, seeking sums that they felt were more justified."

 

[Monkey67]

Re: What's your most ANNOYING film/tv anachronisms/hist. inaccuracy? My vote-The Art

I can not knock Robin hood too much. There has been more robin hoods than Robins in batman. They get killed off all the time in the stories and tales over different times. So plate mail, chain mail, bullet proof vest, what ever.

I cant stand how a someone trained in 20 minutes can best a person who has been at his peak of his skills. mostly swords or hand to hand combat. Need more like Rocky. you can pull for the little man to win. Just dont think its gonna happen nor should it at times.

Nick Fury was a B.A dude in the comics. Think of the Punisher with one eye. But Samuel L. Jackson* is not a BA. Sorry but it's So true, so true. If you say what about Pulp Fiction. Then I'll say Mr. Wolf, no one messes with Mr.Wolf. You just better go get him a Big Kahuna burger if you know whats good for ya.

BTW Bruce Willis is like Chuck Norris, you cant stop the man.