11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy

...i don't understand why people get so mad at cracked for exaggerating a fact or skipping over a detail every once and again. i mean, the site describes itself as a HUMOR SITE and the writers frequently make cracks at their own immaturity. why can't you just roll with it and laugh at a good joke? gawd, people get so mad on here over the littlest things... i love cracked, and all of their hyperboli. (ooh, SAT vocab word!) cracked, ftw! :D

7/2/2009 12:20:25 AM

skyeatsali

The Marie Antoinette one is not true. Whilst members (heh. member. penis.)of his family did have surgery to correct the foreskin problem, Louis 16 was not one of them. Also, consider that, at the time, there was no such thing as anesthesia or even painkillers that could work well enough to turn a surgery that primitive into anything other than some guy with an unclean knife cutting off bits of the penis into anything other than the horrifying, mentally scarring torture session it seems like - so most men who did have the surgery were never able to get it up again, therefore the offspring part of this post would never have happened.

6/25/2009 1:03:01 AM

brokenamanda

Why the f**k do they have 2001 as the top spot? That movie was made in the m***********g 1970s! Of course it was wrong, it was made before any of those events ever happened.

Also, the Mir didnt crash cos it broke, it was basically scuttled, as it was obsolete. So you guys really need to do some actual f*****g research, like maybe read up something other then wikipedia.

6/20/2009 4:55:04 PM

Ragnarok05

I can't tell if the guys at cracked really do their research or not. Everything is presented as straight up fact, but not everythings appears to be totally accurate.

I know it's a comedy article but aren't you doing the same thing as the "bullshit" movies if you present false facts?

6/15/2009 1:50:46 PM

anorexorcist

they may take our facts and completely convolute what we actually did or why we did it but they will never take our FREEEEEEDOM!

6/11/2009 6:43:53 PM

hanibal

Check up on your Commodus story. Many consider his reign to be the start of the decline of the Roman Empire. Further, many aspects of his personality rightly justify those historians who regard him as a psychopath. He stayed within the relatively good graces of his military and some of the people. However, he was also feared and hated by the senate. Finally, his undeniable bloodlust for killing animals stands among the most heinous pursuits by an authority figure the world has ever seen.

6/7/2009 2:33:11 PM

akalanka

In the case of Amadeus, what may be happening is that, since we're hearing the whole story from Salieri's point of view, he's vilifying Mozart a little. And, by all means, Mozart has become far more famous then Salieri ever was.

6/5/2009 1:17:54 PM

loqutor

There is no evidence Mozart drank himself to death. More likely he died of trichinosis, a worm infestation caused by eating poorly cooked pork contaminated with the parasite.

6/1/2009 12:41:26 AM

spacecadet

@Chevy: the Mayan *priests* were the experts on astronomy; the people we saw panicking half-way through the movie (not the end) because they thought the world was ending, were commoners who knew nothing about how the calendars worked

5/31/2009 6:50:59 PM

PalinIsNotAMILF

mike, i think trv meant that at the time the movie was made(before 2001), it was speculating about the future, which by definition is a literal impossiblity for "historical" inaccuracy: seeing as how history is the past and all.

5/31/2009 6:40:06 PM

gonz2472

Not to mention that the entire Mayan civilization disappeared 600 years before Apocalypto was supposed to happen.

5/29/2009 3:13:21 PM

Thekure

trv...it was set in 2001.

5/19/2009 2:52:51 PM

MikeDeezNutz

You cant have an article about historical inaccuracies and have 2001: A Space Odyssey as number one. IT WAS SET IN THE FUTURE.

5/14/2009 3:34:57 AM

trv

Brave New World is awesome cool. Aldous Huxley was Orwell's prof at one point, and there are a few key lines in BNW that you can see spawned a few key points of 1984.

5/12/2009 7:35:26 PM

nirot

1984 was a freaken weird book. Amazing, specifically in the torture part, depressing, and enlightening into the inner workings of civilization but a really f*****g weird book. I still hear someone mention 2 + 2 = ... without shouting out five and laughing. I've heard A Brave New World is even more insane though.

5/12/2009 6:36:21 PM

Spideycow

Near the end of apocalypto, an eclipse happens and everyone begins running for the hills as if they feared a huge anus had just opened up and they were about to receive the worlds largest log pinch.
So, we have the Mayans, whose calendar is actually more accurate than ours, who had mapped out the solar cycles and actually the planetary movements of venus and earth well before anyone else realized what planets were, being suddenly surprised by this "unimaginable happening"? I think a resounding, NOT. There are innaccuracies, and then there are blatant disregards.

5/7/2009 2:27:30 PM

chevy28360

Braveheart is the epitome of historical inaccuracy and a s**t movie. Period. And still, people keep saying that the battle scenes make the movie worthwhile. Except that they don't. As far as I'm concerned, a bunch of guys running around holding their dicks with their hands, randomly clashing fake swords and trying to figure out where to go next is not my ideal of battle scene.

4/30/2009 3:46:38 PM

PDR1987

I know, too, that this is just humor. But if you really think 2001 is a movie about an evil computer, you've missed the point of the story. If you read the book, you'd know what the cavemen at the beginning, the weird trip, and the space baby are all about. Ok, I can be a real a*****e, I know.

4/30/2009 2:57:01 PM

vquints

and they had us believe the Athenians were the boy lovers!

4/30/2009 2:48:37 PM

vquints

I actually did realize it was a humor column, but I still felt they could have had better examples.
I still liked it despite my grumblings.

3/22/2009 8:58:09 AM

thunderguppy