Movies that you stopped watching because of inaccuracies

[batguy]

From what I have read on IMDB, the declaration was added after the film had already got very harsh criticism, from veterans, historians and some influential British people.

It is one thing to make something up. Another to misrepresent actual events, especially about things that happened in a war, that people still remember first- or second-hand.

I don't see how U-571 misrepresented anything. They never presented it as a true story. The fictional story wasn't a very close match for the real events. U-571 may have been the wrong movie to make, but that's a creative opinion. I don't think it deserved to get flak for misleading people.

There was no real Private Ryan either. But nobody gave Spielberg flak for lying. Nor did anybody say 'Private Ryan' was dishonoring the real people who inspired it. Why was it different with that movie?

 

[greenmachines]

I'm scared to name one.

 

[VanPersie]

I don't see how U-571 misrepresented anything. They never presented it as a true story. The fictional story wasn't a very close match for the real events. U-571 may have been the wrong movie to make, but that's a creative opinion. I don't think it deserved to get flak for misleading people.

There was no real Private Ryan either. But nobody gave Spielberg flak for lying. Nor did anybody say 'Private Ryan' was dishonoring the real people who inspired it. Why was it different with that movie?

It's one thing to take real events like D-day, then insert fictional characters into them. It's entirely different to create one using other people's experiences and distorting history to such a point.

 

[joberg]

Yeah, but this thread is really about the capacity to suspend disbelief, which is somewhat subjective.

Also, I was just taking a cheap shot at the actor, to be honest.

"Cheap shot"...no pun intended

 

[dascoyne]

"Cheap shot"...no pun intended

 

[batguy]

It's one thing to take real events like D-day, then insert fictional characters into them. It's entirely different to create one using other people's experiences and distorting history to such a point.

'Private Ryan' was more than D-day. The brunt of the movie was a fictional story about saving one brother out of several. And that was inspired by a real family IIRC. I just don't see why that's okay but it's objectionable to make up a sub mission about the Enigma stuff.

War movies are full of fictionalized missions. 'Hunt for Red October' is another example where there was a real-life precedent but a lot of stuff was changed. 'Firefox' sort of happened but it was a Russian pilot who defected in a MIG-25 and landed in Japan. Etc.

 

[Joek3rr]

Just about every Bible movies or show. Or pretty much anything with Romans in it. Stop putting everyone in Arab robes. Stop with the leather Roman armor, and garbage helmets. Just stop.

Also goes the same for most Medieval films. The armor is almost always horrendous. And sometimes the "history" is too. Like Braveheart. Kingdom of Heaven is better on the armor front, but still as bad in the history front. (Not to mention the copious amounts of political correctness.)

 

[VanPersie]

'Private Ryan' was more than D-day. The brunt of the movie was a fictional story about saving one brother out of several. And that was inspired by a real family IIRC. I just don't see why that's okay but it's objectionable to make up a sub mission about the Enigma stuff.

War movies are full of fictionalized missions. 'Hunt for Red October' is another example where there was a real-life precedent but a lot of stuff was changed. 'Firefox' sort of happened but it was a Russian pilot who defected in a MIG-25 and landed in Japan. Etc.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make my comment but i’ll try.

Saving Private Ryan took D-day, and other factual aspects like the US military doing its best to stop full generations of a family being killed in action, then used those things and inserted a fictional group of men within those events.

U-571 completely re-wrote the history.

It was objectionable to some because it is not unusual for British (and others) achievements to be made into “USA saves the day again, and it was released when a good number of WW2 veterans were still around. Some were even those who were the real people who did those things.

If you don’t get the problem with it, then fine.

 

[batguy]

U-571 completely re-wrote the history.

It was objectionable to some because it is not unusual for British (and others) achievements to be made into “USA saves the day again, and it was released when a good number of WW2 veterans were still around. Some were even those who were the real people who did those things.

If you don’t get the problem with it, then fine.

I agree that American-izing the good guys was the most uncool aspect of it. I guess I just don't think it rises to a worse level of offense than a zillion other war/historical movies. Personal opinion.

 

[Riceball]

Id say any movie that shows his acting range,

He kinda plays himself in just about everything

To be fair, as much as I dislike Alec Baldwin, he's hardly unique in largely playing himself. A lot of well-known actors do this, esp. when they're well-known and are on the older side.

 

[batguy]

To be fair, as much as I dislike Alec Baldwin, he's hardly unique in largely playing himself. A lot of well-known actors do this, esp. when they're well-known and are on the older side.

That's pretty much the formula for the most beloved acting/characters.

Get a charismatic actor who can play a wide range, and then have them play themselves anyway.

 

[Riceball]

That's pretty much the formula for the most beloved acting/characters.

Get a charismatic actor who can play a wide range, and then have them play themselves anyway.

I think that after a certain point, that's what some actors can do. They've just been at it for so long and playing the same kinds of characters they that they just fault to playing themselves or at least playing the character the same way that they've done nearly every other character in their career. But in some cases, I don't think that it's necessarily the actor's or the director's fault, it comes down to a matter of audience expectations, and audiences are too used to a given actor acting in a certain way and that's how they want to see them in every role and so the actor, director, and studio aim to please and you get a famous actor once again playing themselves or the version of themselves that you've seen in every other movie they've been in.

 

[batguy]

I think that after a certain point, that's what some actors can do. They've just been at it for so long and playing the same kinds of characters they that they just fault to playing themselves or at least playing the character the same way that they've done nearly every other character in their career. But in some cases, I don't think that it's necessarily the actor's or the director's fault, it comes down to a matter of audience expectations, and audiences are too used to a given actor acting in a certain way and that's how they want to see them in every role and so the actor, director, and studio aim to please and you get a famous actor once again playing themselves or the version of themselves that you've seen in every other movie they've been in.

Yeah the public's expectations are a big part of it. Past a certain point in a career a star actor usually gets hired to bring their known persona.

Even the biggest stars are generally at the mercy of what the public wants to see them doing. They can branch out into other roles sporadically. But they will have a main reliable cash crop, and it's usually playing a version of themselves.

Jack Nicholson plays an incorrigible jerk. Harrison Ford plays a relatable over-matched action hero. Anne Hathaway plays a pretty woman with a smart spin. Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise. Joachim Phoenix plays psychologically damaged. Meryl Streep adds Meryl-Streep-ness to any character. Jared Leto makes you want to kick his characters in the nuts. Etc.

 

[Solo4114]

Another would be Where Eagles Dare where I got about 3 mins in and they had a helicopter that wasn't around in WW2. I did go back and watch it recently because, well Clint Eastwood.

That one's one of my absolute favorite WWII commando films. But yeah, the first time I saw it, I was like "WTF? A hellicopter?!"

 

[laellee]

Being a USAF guy, it always bothered me in the 80's when movies would represent enemy Migs or whatever with american jets. I get why, but when the 'enemy' is flying an F-4, right away (even at age 11) I was like WTF. MY OCD has never helped me on that, but yeah it always bothers me in the OG action movies when the vehicles and armaments are wrong. It never ruined the movies, but when it's 3 am and you can't sleep, it's super easy to dwell on/over

 

[batguy]

Being a USAF guy, it always bothered me in the 80's when movies would represent enemy Migs or whatever with american jets. I get why, but when the 'enemy' is flying an F-4, right away (even at age 11) I was like WTF. MY OCD has never helped me on that, but yeah it always bothers me in the OG action movies when the vehicles and armaments are wrong. It never ruined the movies, but when it's 3 am and you can't sleep, it's super easy to dwell on/over

Car/truck goofs always bug me because I'm too familiar with them.

I'm more forgiving when it comes to aircraft because there was little choice about it before CGI. You can't just take real planes and start adding fake engines & changing the shape of the wings.

 

[Solo4114]

Being a USAF guy, it always bothered me in the 80's when movies would represent enemy Migs or whatever with american jets. I get why, but when the 'enemy' is flying an F-4, right away (even at age 11) I was like WTF. MY OCD has never helped me on that, but yeah it always bothers me in the OG action movies when the vehicles and armaments are wrong. It never ruined the movies, but when it's 3 am and you can't sleep, it's super easy to dwell on/over

I was a hair's breadth away from mentioning that the "Mig-28" in the original Top Gun is, if memory serves, an F-5 Tiger. And, to my knowledge, the Soviets didn't usually paint their aircraft black...

I had a book of fighter jet diagrams and such as a kid, and even then I remember thinking "Wait...a Mig-28? I've never heard of that..."

 

[Solo4114]

Car/truck goofs always bug me because I'm too familiar with them.

I'm more forgiving when it comes to aircraft because there was little choice about it before CGI. You can't just take real planes and start adding fake engines & changing the shape of the wings.

You can get by with tanks, though. Apparently in the filming of Red Dawn, the producers made a "T-70" that was actually just a mocked-up American tank, but it was close enough that they wound up being questioned about it.

 

[batguy]

You can get by with tanks, though. Apparently in the filming of Red Dawn, the producers made a "T-70" that was actually just a mocked-up American tank, but it was close enough that they wound up being questioned about it.

Yeah you can do almost anything with land vehicles.

I'm impressed any time somebody bothers to customize a tank. Most of the public wouldn't know the difference. Leave it to John "Walker Sobchak" Milius to demand an accurate Soviet tank prop.

The earlier plan for the Hoth battle in ESB was to use existing tanks for AT-ATs. They would probably have ended up looking like small sandcrawlers once they were customized.

I had a book of fighter jet diagrams and such as a kid, and even then I remember thinking "Wait...a Mig-28? I've never heard of that..."

There's very little US intel about it. Just a couple of confrontations back in '86. It's rumored that an F-14 got into an inverted 4-G dive with one. And we shot down several in dogfight. Apparently the Soviets abandoned the plane entirely after that.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

That one's one of my absolute favorite WWII commando films. But yeah, the first time I saw it, I was like "WTF? A hellicopter?!"

The Germans did create the first military helicopter, but the one in that movie was a Bell 47, which was like the helo in MASH. So it wasn't built until the early 50s.

You can get by with tanks, though. Apparently in the filming of Red Dawn, the producers made a "T-70" that was actually just a mocked-up American tank, but it was close enough that they wound up being questioned about it.

Going back and watching Red Dawn, my biggest minor peeve is that they show M1 Abrams tanks just sitting and firing stationary. I don't know if it was an actual M1 or a mockup, so it's possible they couldn't move. Oh and the fact that Americans gave up all their guns that quickly! In real life, those Cubans and Russians would probably get bogged down and annihilated in the first few cities they came across, by civilians.