Bonus points of course if it has no plot relevance
In gladiator 2 Denzel says ‘hose him off’ but they wouldn’t have had hoses of any kind, it would’ve been pipes so he should have said ‘pipe this guy off’
Guards, pipe this guy off
im just out here tryin’ to get piped off.
The first Gladiator had historically inaccurate forests in the opening scene. It bothers me more than the white marble.
European women didn’t really start wearing underwear until the 19th century. I haven’t really observed any books or films messing this up but I still think it’s one of those amazing weird historical facts that few people are aware of.
Saying “fire!” when all you have are bows and arrows that aren’t on fire.
Still upset that we didn’t get historically accurate armor in the odyssey which I haven’t even seen yet.
Making historical characters lie to the audience so that the audience doesn’t hate them (Lawrence of Arabia knew he was fucking over the Arabs but the movie goes out of its way to make him seem clueless about this even though the film also makes him out to be a tactical and strategic genius).
women didn’t really start wearing underwear until the 19th century
If you want to squat in the street and take a piss under your skirts, underwear is going to complicate that.
Saying “fire!” when all you have are bows and arrows
Volley shots like this aren’t even historically accurate if they change it to “loose!” Archers waited until the enemy got within range and then just started shooting, not synchronizing with everyone else. People had different strengths and endurance, including English peasants who trained consistently with longbows. Some guy might fire 10 arrows per minute while another can fire 15. They aren’t going to wait for each other.
What this comes from is blackpowder warfare where groups had to synchronize their fire in order to hit anything. Especially when muskets were smoothbore before the invention of rifling.
Also with historical bows you can’t ready and hold a shot, you have to draw and release in a smooth motion. Modern bows use pulleys with weirdly shaped disks to reduce the force required to hold it when fully drawn, but without that innovation holding an arrow at full draw would quickly exhaust even a trained and fit archer.
What this comes from is blackpowder warfare where groups had to synchronize their fire in order to hit anything. Especially when muskets were smoothbore before the invention of rifling.
And even there it’s more about keeping ranks synchronized, since they were standing in a tight formation and needed the preceding rank to be kneeling to fire over them. You can’t have people working at their own pace when they have to act during a certain window of opportunity and then get out of the way and start preparing for the next volley.
Their military theory also emphasized the volley as something terrifying and withering, that a sudden barrage of musket fire would be more likely to make a charge falter or rout a line between the noise and having a large number of simultaneous casualties all falling at once.
Oh, and while we’re on this, there’s a common myth about line infantry being “unwilling” to shoot at the other line, and so firing into the air above them or simply not firing at all, but the actual historical evidence is that a) muskets were unreliable as hell and would frequently misfire, and because of the nature of volley fire soldiers would commonly just not notice that their gun didn’t fire and try to reload it again, and that b) contemporary sources observed that soldiers would overestimate bullet drop over distances and try to compensate by aiming higher on the target, and that they further weren’t aware of how much recoil would jerk the barrel upwards before the round left it. Meaning they’d aim for the head or upper torso of someone 100-150 yards away, then the recoil would send the muzzle up and the shot would miss by a foot or so. Contemporary sources include recommendations to train soldiers to aim for the legs of the opposing line, on the assumption they’d still aim higher but would keep the margin of error within the height of the target at least.
I’m no pro archer, but in my experience once you have a full draw it’s not that bad to hold.
I don’t know how else to describe it, but holding the shot feels like you’re “inside” the bow. Like you’re pushing against two perfectly spaced walls that are gently squishing you.
Drawing the bow, in my experience, is the tiresome part. More like quickly ripping apart a stack of paper.
All that said, I agree that soldiers weren’t purposefully missing the other soldiers. Everybody wants to win from the shock of an alpha strike breaking the enemy morale and nobody would let their enemy to do it to them.
sychronization has no effect on the accuracy or damage of black powder, it’s just desirable as a scary shock. arrows are the same, even if they have a higher ‘base’ accuracy, it’s better to have a heap of arrows coming into a formation at once over grains in to shock the enemy and give them a harder time avoiding/blocking them.
Battles portrayed as disorganised melee fighting instead of formation fighting.
Yeah this is probably my major peeve about films and TV (along with swords as lightsabers cutting through armor). It turns out, our ancestors really didn’t like dying and would do things to prevent it, such as making sure you know who’s behind you and on your side. Running, too. Formations would walk into each other slowly because throughout history, battles were giant games of chicken where the first person to lose their nerve gets stabbed.
Moving in an orderly fashion where you can avoid getting stabbed in the back, avoid running out of breath, and know what everyone on your side is doing is much, much more effective than using your face as a battering ram to headbutt the shields of the other side.
Then there’s the whole getting trampled to death by 2,000 pound animals (or bigger, like that time Hannibal crossed the Alps with African elephants). Standing in a block and making a wall of knives is the easiest way to avoid getting body slammed by a horse.
The Last Kingdom actually did a pretty good job with this. Most battles are just a bunch of dudes forming shield walls and stabbing at each other waiting for calvary to break the other side’s formation.
They have sequences where the main guy does superman shit, but the rest of the guys are all packed in tight and holding a line.
Vikings seasons 1 and 2 did a great job of this too. Then by season 5 everyone was doing solo duels.
LK kinda got there, but they stuck to the big battles better.
There’s a few where they dogpile, but those are meant to show how disorganized the conscripted soldiers were since they just get immediately wrecked by the other guys using actual formation.
Those two are both good in general for fun medium/large budget battle sequences though.
the only times formation fighting at scale has been convincingly done on film was when warsaw pact countries lent heaps of soldiers to film productions. the “average hollywood film” is less choosing the spectacle of dudes duelling over formations and more appreciating that if you zoomed out sufficiently the audience is going to realise there are 200 dudes in this field pretending to be 20000
Any dinosaur thing that has flowers or grass before the late Cretaceous
I would also say having dinosaurs from different periods living at the same time, but that is not a small inaccuracy. Stegosaurus lived further away in time from T. rex than even us!
Hold still, the t-rex can’t see us even though we are inches from its car-sized nose.
The T. rex probably had both decent binocular vision and large olfactory bulbs indicating a good sense of smell. It would probably both see and smell you in front of it. However it’s unclear if it would attack something as small as a human.
I think I saw that they were about as intelligent as alligators, so why not munch on a tasty bite-sized treat like a human?
This presupposes that we taste good.
I bet you It’s more like a shark. A T-Rex would eat one person, realize that we taste like microplastics, And stick to just stomping on us instead
What do you mean! I am delicious!
slorp!
EUUUGHSGS GROSS
How can this be!? Perhaps you didn’t chew enough?
Whenever nobles tell stoopid peasants how to do basics in order to justify (to the audience) why they’re in charge because they’re so smart:
-
In Bridgerton, Duke Hastings returns to his manor to find it in disarray. He tells his peasants they have to let land lay in fallow so the ground can restore nutrients. The concept of fallow land was thousands of years old at this point, and even the 3 field system was 800 years old in Europe.
-
In Kingdom of Heaven, John of Ibelin (a French blacksmith) explains to native Palestinians how to irrigate their farmlands. Europeans learned irrigation from Arabs, not the other way around.
-
In a later season of Game of Thrones, Lady Sansa commands her soldiers to wear furs between their skin and armor so the metal doesn’t sap their heat in winter. She tells this to soldiers from the land where winter lasts years.
In Kingdom of Heaven, John of Ibelin (a French blacksmith) explains to native Palestinians how to irrigate their farmlands. Europeans learned irrigation from Arabs, not the other way around.
yeah that’s funny. people in the levant, egypt and mesopotamia were irrigating their fields back when western europeans were hunting with flint spears
I took a different reading from that, though it may be due to differences between the theatrical cut and the directors cut. I interpreted it not as him showing them how to irrigate, but organizing the work and directing it to be done.
The line “your father was important, his lands were not” suggests to me that this was not considered particularly good land worth capital improvements, hence why it had not had such a works built previously. Or, alternatively, it was badly administered land with an absentee landlord.
That’s an interesting interpretation, but not how the scene is actually presented. I love the movie, but it’s a white savior movie in every respect.
Kingdom of Heaven is a guilty pleasure. Terrible nonsensical writing and kind of meh acting but a very beautiful film.
I wouldn’t say my interpretation makes it any less of a white savior story. It still takes a quirked up white boy to believe in investing in something others had dismissed (motif repeated during the bit where he knights everyone at the defense of Jerusalem)
In a later season of Game of Thrones, Lady Sansa commands her soldiers to wear furs between their skin and armor so the metal doesn’t sap their heat in winter. She tells this to soldiers from the land where winter lasts years.
Iirc, they’re Reach soldiers, not from Winterfell. The Reach also looks like a cold place, with a lot of sheep, so I guess they still should know that.
-
The monkey from Aladdin wearing a fez, fezes are like 1800s stuff rifles were used when monkeys wore fezes.
I’ll have to find it, but there was a YouTube video that said the geographic and temporal range of Allison was like if Disney had a movie about a mythical “European” city that encompasses everything from Ancient Greece to the Renaissance.
It was Hakim I think, or it was that Kuwaity American guy
Allison?
Autocorrect is a fiend
Whoopsie
No one says Agrabah isn’t an isolated desert city state while next door the Ottomans are shooting Greek nationalists and doing the Armenian genocide
They leave aghrabah during the song sequence, on the flying carpet.
Aw damn I forgot about that
While it’s true that fezzes as we now known (And in the form, say, Aladdin himself wears one) and as a part of Ottoman official dress only became a thing much later, the fez as a piece of clothing date back much further. Mehmed II is very famously depicted wearing one. (As in, the depiction of him is famous, not that the fact that he is wearing a fez is a famous fact about the depiction)“BUT KELD. THAT’S A TURBAN.”
I can already hear you protest. Yes, you’re right. A turban wrapped around a fez. Because that’s how fezzes were worn initially.
One from my dad: in the movie Glory, the final scene where they assault the fort. My dad grew up obsessed with Civil War battles and instantly pointed out that the assault was being made from the wrong direction. He paused the vhs and pointed to the position of the sun and said it was backwards, they had approached from the other cardinal direction in reality. He also had a few things to say about the arms and tactics used but it’s been so long I’ve forgotten them
Words and phrases that didn’t exist yet. Like: “bleed out” used by ordinary people in the 1970s or even before. I don’t know how long normies have used the term but my wild guess is the 1990s maybe.
Ninja edit. Stranger Things had stuff like: “trust issues”, “stay frosty”, “I think I just threw up in my mouth.” etc. I stopped making a list because I tried to ignore all of them.
The opening text in Braveheart says Edward I “Longshanks” invaded Scotland in 1280 after the Scotttish king died. In reality, the king died in 1286, and Edward didn’t take over until 1292, then precipitating the First Scottish War of Independence. Also, the lack of a bridge at the Battle of Sterling Bridge was pretty silly in hindsight.
Braveheart is unwatchable for me because it’s so horrifically inaccurate. Almost every scene has something wrong with it. Like the Monty Python movies have more historical accuracy.
Lu Bu was:
- Not a real historical figure in the “high-ranking warlord” sense
- Only slightly above average height
- Not some warrior demigod with a fuckass halberd (although he was allegedly a pretty decent shot with a bow)
Fuckin’ Luo Guanzhong trying to turn everyone into a manga badass, and glazing the Shu Han kingdom when they really didn’t deserve it
glazing the Shu Han kingdom when they really didn’t deserve it
I had read the preface to current English edition where the role of the novel as historical propaganda was explained and it really have no sense except “i decided Shu is good” which then continue to be parroted over centuries. Why would Central Plains unification faction become a proxy for Mongols and Manchu while western and southern splinter warlords become good guys from the specific point of view of desirable unification of China and throwing off a foreign rule is completely beyond me.
It basically was trying to justify that the ruling dynasty can be based in Southern China, because before it was assumed by default that the true center of China is in the north.
What’s especially baffling is the modern spin that tries to paint anticommunists as Shu and the modern CPC as Wei. I forget where I read that garbage, but it felt like some incredibly forced Radio Free Asia bullshit written by someone who just discovered Dynasty Warriors.
Didn’t even get far enough into the story to learn about the Jin Dynasty, smdh my dick head
I’m so confused, wouldn’t the only remotely communist group during that time be something like the Yellow Turban rebellion? Pretty much the only “people’s” movement I can think of, the rest of it was just various powerful nobles fucking over the people.
No one ever accused anticommunists of being coherent. It’s more that Wei was “aUtHoRiTaRiAn” when, in truth, Cao Cao’s agricultural policy (tuntian, effectively diverting military resources to work farmers’ lands and reimbursing them for use afterward) and its prevention of further widespread famine kept Wei’s economy afloat better than Wu or Shu, who each had their own bizarre supply line issues due to their geography. Regardless, maybe there are some parallels there to Mao, and that’s what propagandists are trying to evoke by painting Cao Cao – and therefore Mao – as overly ambitious?
I dunno, man; I’m two sentences into this thought experiment and I’m already at my limit for bullshit Reddit Island cryptohistory takes, lmao
We can probably leave it at “poorly thought-out KMT propaganda.” Edit: or
I’m trying to remember when and where I saw it. I’m guessing around 2016-2017, which means it very well could have been a Reddit post of an article from some NATOid rag talking about the “evolution” of Three Kingdoms discourse. I’ll try to do some digging, because all I can remember are the glorious brainworms.
But it does sound maddening, very lib to take a fictional account of historical events and then try to give them the Hollywood treatment and then take that Hollywood treatment that bears no bearing on the original whatsoever and use it to fill in the blanks of their black and white “good guys are this team, bad guys are this team” kind of simplistic idealistic great man history thinking. I don’t blame you for not wanting to bother, it sounds completely pointless and the sort of things libs make up to sound smart while refusing to actually understand history in the slightest.
Yeah, I can’t find it again, but I stumbled across this bullshit instead. CW for weapons-grade orientalism:
https://thediplomat.com/2016/04/the-three-kingdoms-three-paths-for-chinas-future/
So what I’m getting from this is that the Heishan bandits were basically the same as the anarchists in the Spanish civil war. Gotcha.
Also Liu Bei had the right “lineage” being a descendant of a minor branch of the Han Imperial House as opposed to Cao Cao (the son of an adopted son of eunuch) and Sun Quan (the son of minor official)
Harry Potter ass bullshit, I tell you
What’s funny even after 500 years long series of revisions glazing Liu Bei more and more you can still notice basically nobody in the book seriously beliving this “imperial uncle” move. And the story of the three is still basically
TBF Lu Bu’s prowess was noted in the Sanguozhi
and hes not some marginal player in the beginning, his betrayal of Dong Zhou set the whole period into motion
What if it was Lieutenant Bu and he was a bumbling, incompetent comic relief character like half of the cast of M.A.S.H.?
“LIEUTENANT BU! Are you finished cleaning that latrine yet? So help me, if I get dysentery again, I’m putting on your record that you betrayed me!”
But did he walk a mile in those Lu Bu Tans?
No Country For Old Men:
-
Anton Chighur uses a Gen 2 Glock 19 in one scene. This is anachronistic because the movie takes place at some point in the year 1980. Glock handguns were introduced into Austrian military service in 1982, became available for purchase by civilians starting in 1983, and were introduced to North America in 1985. Furthermore, the Glock 19 specifically was not produced until 1988.
-
In another scene Anton Chighur uses an Interdynamic KG-99 that seems to have been converted to full auto, meaning it’s possibly supposed to be a TEC-9 in the context of the scene (the McCarthy novel calls it a TEC-9). The KG-99 was introduced in 1982, and the TEC-9 was introduced in1984.
Shutter Island:
- Leonardo Dicaprio’s character (Edit: Ben Kingsley) uses the term “zombie” at one point to describe the effects of a lobotomy. This is anachronistic because the film is set in 1954. It wasn’t until the film Night of the Living Dead in 1969 did the term come to mean a mindless, shambling corpse. In 1954 the term zombie would have been more associated with Voodoo and witchcraft, as in a mind controlled servant magically bound to a sorceror.
In regards to the Shutter Island thing, the quote is actually
Y’know this place makes me wonder; which would be worse—to live as a monster, or to die as a good man?
even so I think it is in line with the MKUltra subtext of the film for the older voodoo meaning to still work here.
I got it wrong, it was actually the psychiatrist played by Ben Kingsley who said the line. It’s earlier in the movie where he’s discussing the various treatments done on the island and he brings up lobotomies. He says “Some say the patients become reasonable, docile. Others say they become zombies.”
So saying the phrase like that would be a little anachronistic, since the conception of a zombie in 1954 would have been a magically bound slave. But I do kinda like the MKULTRA angle too.
I’m inclined to think it’s intentional, because you can generally find this subtextual implication of deep politics looming around in the background of most of Scorcese’s films. Like the Cuban gusano gunrunners/CIA agent that is obviously a stand-in for E. Howard Hunt (even making a joke about his ears!) in The Irishman as a fast example. To me, Kingsley’s portrayal of the character is very obviously a stand-in for Sidney Gottlieb with his kind of urbane and new agey affect.
-
In The Odyssey, Matt Damon does his trick shot into a sheet of chipboard
Im the Odyssey he dry fies his bow (pulling and releasing the string without firing an arrow) which is very bad for the bow and can even break it.
The dude does it to a very old bow that hasen’t been used for years too.
I’ve already forgotten most of the film, did he fully load the string or just pluck it? The problem with dry firing a bow is that without an arrow all of the stored energy gets dissipated into the bow stave. If it’s a small pull enough to produce sound it’s probably not an issue
Dude strums it like a fucking bass, that ain’t no small pull he fucking slapped that shit
it also implies that matt damon’s body is a hollow resonating chamber
Yeah but did you hear the cool sound it made
why would dry firing damage the bow more than wet firing? how much does an arrow weigh?
Its more that the string firing is producing a lot of force that is supposed to go into an arrow and not the limbs of the bow
I guess an arrow does fly really fast. Must be some really fucked up exponential math?
Well the bow I used to used when I was a teen, which is a recurve bow for weaker people (I’m smol and I was just starting out. I swear I could fire stonger bows but those jerks underestimated me) was a 25 pound bow, which means the string requires 25 pounds of force to pull back. An ancient greek war bow would have much more force than that, I imagine. Especially because all those grown men couldn’t string Odysseus’ bow.
I could be wrong about the dry firing. I just remember my instructor telling me to not even think about doing it.
This is all for fun though. It’s a fantasy movie in the end.
SCA?
deleted by creator
What about ants in your bed tho
deleted by creator
Based and bug pilled
ed
Japanese imagined western fantasy transposes a lot without realizing it, characters saying itadakimasu before meals, and the mages in witch hat atelier keep ingredients in square drawer Chinese medicine cabinets, and they describe ordinary ink as using wood soot (Japanese ink is made this way) rather than oak gall.
w**b detected
I dropped witch hat atelier very early, because despite how pretty the animation was, I didn’t like the magic system. It’s supposed to be a secret how you do magic despite it being everywhere with very obvious rune engravings, and it’s shown to require no skill such that tracings and stamps work, yet the focus of their training seems to be freehand drawing perfectly accurate circles instead of using stencils or drafting tools.
Do biopics count?
In Bohemian Rhapsody (it sucks btw, I don’t recommend it) Queen play Fat Bottomed Girls (from 1978) on their 1974 tour. Freddie Mercury is also diagnosed with HIV in 1985 in that film. He was diagnosed in 1987 in real life.
