Thread: Most laughably inaccurate war movies ever

Anything that involves the US cavalry seeing off those dastardly Indians with a charge, bugler in full song.

oh and I know it's completely fictional but the Battle of the Pellenor fields, as done by Peter Jackson. A complete travesty.

Well, A and B and C.

A: I read the book "Wargames", so I know of the drug tape. The book was even more idealistic than the movie.

B: Be careful of the History Channel. Seen some glaring errors where the narrator is saying one thing and picture says another, such as Soviet nuclear submarines and shows a line of Foxtrots.

C: And, of course, there is the being knocked back a few feet when being shot.
------------------------------------------
("When the child said his friend flew back in the accidental shooting, I knew there was another part of the story. People shot usually just crumble; flying back is Hollywood stuff."--Investigator, (wtte), The New Detectives "Wasted Youth")

I have my reservations about the History Channel as well. A lot of presentations are obviously biased in one way or another.

Originally Posted by SnowLeopard

B: Be careful of the History Channel. Seen some glaring errors where the narrator is saying one thing and picture says another, such as Soviet nuclear submarines and shows a line of Foxtrots.

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

I have my reservations about the History Channel as well. A lot of presentations are obviously biased in one way or another.

Oh I don't doubt that the History Channel has it's faults.

No Battle Of Midway documentary is complete without footage of Hellcats, Helldivers, Essex-class carriers etc in action.

But a lot of that no doubt stems from simple lack of footage about the subject at hand.

Admittedly, a lack of research and a "yeah that'll fit there OK, now hurry it up, we're on a tight timeline to finish this production" situation will result in Foxtrots substituting for nukes.

In addition, there will always be an element of bias, in one form or another.

That's why it's important to seek your information from a wide variety of sources.

Personally I'll put up with a little bias if the program that I'm watching is by and large honest about it's subject material.

[QUOTE=TopHatter;334398]Well, technically the Americans did capture an Enigma machine, one of many captured (by the RN) during the war. I've seen it in person and also "manned" the periscope of the U-Boat that it was captured off of.

'Off of'' from the erudite TH? I had better lie down for a while. (in a weak voice) From, dear boy, From......

Originally Posted by glyn

'Off of'' from the erudite TH? I had better lie down for a while. (in a weak voice) From, dear boy, From......

Sir? Sir? Are you feeling quite well?

I do use the History Channel and other education TV for a lot of research but often the main things I get out of it are the names of people. Then it is back to the databases to see if that person has written anything, especially if it was in a credible journal.

Once ran into a researcher who was on one of the presentations I had used for antiquity theft, recognized her from the tape. After brief introductions, she asked me what I thought about it and I replied that it was very informative ......... but I had to pause the tape about every 30 seconds to scribble something down.

That's the way a lot of my research goes. First I'm using some source that really isn't a source, as far as academics is concerned, at all. Then from there I usually have enough substance to ask the right questions to find the right sources.

One interesting little tidbit. As noted before, there is the narration about nukes but showing diesals. Well, in the book Rising Tide: The Untold Story of the Russian Submarines That Fought the Cold War, there is an extensive account of the diesals that were sent to Cuba during the missile crisis. Afterwards, an official in the Kremlin blasted the command for why their journey didn't go as well since they had their newest nuclear boat, which they didn't. It's an interesting coincidence, almost definetly not linked, but still very interesting.
--------------
("So how was it last night, your 'date' (being in bed) with Leo?"--Phoebe
"Well, it was okay, but I was nervous and so out of practice that ...."--Piper
"Oh, Piper, you didn't!"
"I froze him practically every 30 seconds!", (w,stte), Charmed "Wicca Envy"(?))

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Oh I don't doubt that the History Channel has it's faults.

No Battle Of Midway documentary is complete without footage of Hellcats, Helldivers, Essex-class carriers etc in action.

But a lot of that no doubt stems from simple lack of footage about the subject at hand.

Admittedly, a lack of research and a "yeah that'll fit there OK, now hurry it up, we're on a tight timeline to finish this production" situation will result in Foxtrots substituting for nukes.

In addition, there will always be an element of bias, in one form or another.

That's why it's important to seek your information from a wide variety of sources.

Personally I'll put up with a little bias if the program that I'm watching is by and large honest about it's subject material.

There are a lot of shots of USS Enterprise in action. And it played a bit of a part at said battle. Honestly sometimes I think producers don't even try.

As for bias, there always is one. No matter how truthfully or in a detached way something is presented. So an Englishman will always see Yorktown as a tragerdy. And a yank a success.

Just look at the bios of Alexander the great over time. So much of the interpretation of his actions stem from contempory sensibilities.

As for bad war movies, anything the Indians make, with reference to us.

And oh yeah,
Errol Flynn, "They died with their boots on".

Originally Posted by Parihaka

oh and I know it's completely fictional but the Battle of the Pellenor fields, as done by Peter Jackson. A complete travesty.

LOL