Yeah, that was what I was just saying to the last guy who said that. "Port Royal" is too generic a name to imply a specific place because it sounds like the archetypal British colony name for any franchise using that era: undescriptive, shamelessly imperious and Neo-english. So unless the location in the film does actually mimic the real port in some meaningful way (which you have just said it doesn't) then I see no reason to presume they are the same place.Dusty Fred said:
Historical Inaccuracy Corner
- Thread starter SckizoBoy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the Disney movie Pocahontas was filled with historical, and geological inaccuracies.
First of all, Pocahontas was not some tall, willowy super-model; at the time the film took place, she was a average to plain looking teenager (14-16). And John Smith was a short, fat, (possibly balding) man with brown hair, he was not a tall, slender blond Adonis.
As for the geological inaccuracies, the movie showed tall cliffs and waterfalls near the coast of the bay (Chesapeake Bay to be specific), which is totally impossible. The area near the coast line is the Tidewater region, and is totally flat. The only area in the entire state that would have cliffs or waterfalls is the mountainous region on most western third of the state, over a hundred miles away from the coast.
There were many more errors in that movie, but I can't remember them at this time.
First of all, Pocahontas was not some tall, willowy super-model; at the time the film took place, she was a average to plain looking teenager (14-16). And John Smith was a short, fat, (possibly balding) man with brown hair, he was not a tall, slender blond Adonis.
As for the geological inaccuracies, the movie showed tall cliffs and waterfalls near the coast of the bay (Chesapeake Bay to be specific), which is totally impossible. The area near the coast line is the Tidewater region, and is totally flat. The only area in the entire state that would have cliffs or waterfalls is the mountainous region on most western third of the state, over a hundred miles away from the coast.
There were many more errors in that movie, but I can't remember them at this time.
When I saw the first film I did think "Port Royal" was a generic name so, yeah, I agree it does have that kind of ring to it. Indeed, there were/are several other places so-named around the globe. I just assumed it was meant to be the Jamaican Port Royal because that puts it square in the Caribbean and near to Tortuga. On the other hand, I note from IMDB that the film wasn't shot in Jamaica at any point and the island isn't mentioned by name that I can recall. I'm therefore content to file it under 'uncertain'.Fangobra said:
Aye, but in the film it's 2 members of the american airforce flying with the RAF, not actual volunteers.Jake Lewis Clayton said:
And Europe's history isn't steeped in war after war after war? Most of them for conquering land and people, and because some guy in a rather large hat told them toxXAsherahXx said:
The Patriot was one I forgot about.
In a real musket line battle, the first volleys were not fired at that short of range. At that range, the volley would outright decimate the majority of the enemy soldiers.
When Gibson and his kids ambush the British platoon, note how the very inaccurate pistol snags a killshot while Gibson is running.
I also love how in the final battle, the continental troops stop when they see the british reserves, let them fire, then continue the charge.
In a real musket line battle, the first volleys were not fired at that short of range. At that range, the volley would outright decimate the majority of the enemy soldiers.
When Gibson and his kids ambush the British platoon, note how the very inaccurate pistol snags a killshot while Gibson is running.
I also love how in the final battle, the continental troops stop when they see the british reserves, let them fire, then continue the charge.
Yeah, but Europe has less stupid reasons for going to war, we don't have the large hat, just to idiot who told us it was a good idea to go to war.artanis_neravar said:
"Following Henry Morgan?s appointment as lieutenant governor, Port Royal began to change. Pirates were no longer needed to defend the city. The selling of slaves took on greater importance. Upstanding citizens disliked the reputation the city had acquired. In 1687, Jamaica passed anti-piracy laws. Instead of being a safe haven for pirates, Port Royal became noted as their place of execution. Gallows Point welcomed many to their death, including Charles Vane and Calico Jack, who were hanged in 1720. Two years later, forty-one pirates met their death in one month." This seems to describe the Port Royal in the film, and the film took place around 1740. So it is very reasonable to assume that it was Port Royal Jamaica. Also in the 18th century there were at least a dozen female pirates so that "no women on the ship" thing doesn't always apply. Although at the beginning of the first one Gibbs does mention that it is bad luck, and Jack has never been one to care, and Barbossa was already cursed adn had a reason to bring her along. Oh and Jack isn't bumbling he has been shown time and time again to be using that as an act to throw people off from how good he really is at what he doesFangobra said:
Yes plenty. Big portion of the ones I know are Finnish.BlackStar42 said:
Eastern front movies:
Enemy at the gate
Stalingrad
Leningrad
Talvisota (The winter war)
Tuntematon sotilas (the unknown soldier)
Rukajärven tie (Ambush)
Tali-Ihantala 1944
Etulinjan-edessä (Beyond Enemy Lines)
Come and see
Less stupid reasons then wanting our freedom and wanting to end slavery? like what? Conquering France? Attempting to conquer the world, over and over and over. Killing all of the Muslims and Jews that they could find?xXAsherahXx said:
Alfred Nobel actually hoped that people would stop waging wars when a complete army could be wiped out in moments with explosives. Ah if he only had known how that particular theory would work out...RoBi3.0 said:That guy was a wank. Of course Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. He invented it to aid in mining and was completely horrified when humans started using it to kill each other. This is the main reason why Alfred established the Nobel Peace Prize.Heimir said:Don't remember when but someone told me I was a moron when I said Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.
http://inventors.about.com/od/dstartinventions/a/Alfred_Nobel.htm
He then told me to go f**k myself and that I was a communist.
Americans, you need to put those guys in the looney bin asapThey're bad for your image.
Not all Americans are wank myself included.
That actually wouldn't be too far off either. There were a lot of what we now would call 'military consultants' being passed back and forth among England, China, and the US. It came out a few years back that (big surprise) the Flying Tigers were actually a US military black op, much as the Condor Legion was a German military op in Spain. With the same paper thin excuse even: 'volunteers' and 'mercenaries'.Airsoftslayer93 said:
However, if you're picking on the fact at the time there was no separate 'air force' then I agree.
It's not a movie, but at times World of Tanks really burns my buns. I understand the need for game balance, but frankly it's becoming an excuse for poor implementation of some of WWII's more unique tanks and weapons, particularly among the 'Premium' tanks.
Serious beeves:
M4 Sherman - grotesquely over powered compared to their real life equivalents. A common problem Shermans had was the inability to penetrate German armor. In game M4's weapons can penetrate a Panther. In real life that would be an amazingly lucky shot.
M4A2E8 - The devs need to quit smoking so much grass. While the gun and suspension upgrades did improve things, this one still 'Lights up the first time, Every time'. This tank was NOT the post war Isreali M-50 Super Sherman, which actually did bring the Sherman up to a comparable level with Panthers etc. A Panther was quite capable of taking a direct hit from a 105 at close range with near zero damage, according to a report received by Eisenhower. The 75 and 76mm had a very, very hard time with these. In game, however...
Skoda T-25 - This tank was designed with the Skoda 7.5cm A18 KwK, a semi-automatic gun with an autoloader and drum magazine, which set it apart from the other proposed designs submitted when Germany began designing the Panther. The in game tank is barely on par with the Pz4 and lacks it's signature weapon system, which set it apart from the pack. It has been suggested that if Germany had adopted this tank, given Skoda's projected ability to produce and distribute them, that Russia would have had a much, much bloodier advance on Berlin, possibly stalling it all together. Fortunately, Hitler was crazy.
Paper Project tanks in General - While I'm sure everyone would have gotten bored with the few tank lines that were actually used in WWII, they really should have made the paper project tanks Premium.
The 88mm - WTF? This weapon is and was considered the second most deadly weapon of WWII by most sources (the first being the atomic bomb). It combined accuracy, penetration, and high firepower in a mobile platform, and was used in one form or another against almost every conceivable target in the war. It should not have trouble penetrating a Sherman. ANY Sherman. While, I know, game balance, this nerf gets a bit ridiculous at times.
Most of our wars have been for bad reasons (Spanish American, WWI, Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, 1812, all of those were for literally no good reason at all, containment my ass America you want to stay on top). Ending slavery and becoming independent were our only good ideas. It should have been common sense to end slavery anyways.artanis_neravar said:
WWII was to prevent the destruction of many nationalities and ethnicities and was primarily European. The good many of the rest were either for religion or territory (Crusades, 30 Years)
WWI was aiding our allies while defdnign our trade routes and preventing Germany from convincing Mexico to invade us, Vietnam and Korea we were defending countries from hostile invasions, and France was involved in Vietnam. Korea was a UN conflict, including countries like England, Spain, Germany, and France. WWI was all of Europe as was WWII. The Spanish American War was in response to the way Spain was treating Cuba and the sinking of the USS Maine, which at the time was believed to have been a Spanish attack. 1812 was in response to England's illegal pressing of American soldiers into service in their navy. The Philippines was a revolution of them against the US after we bought the territory from Spain.xXAsherahXx said:
Alright, I see your take on these wars, and they have valid points, the information presented is factual. However, from what I have learned in my days of APUSH, The Spanish American War was entirely declared because of a huge influence from the tabloids and the results of Yellow-Journalism. The treatment of Cubans was actually very greatly exaggerated, so was the sinking of the USS Maine. I have read some of the newspapers from the era while doing a research project. We went to war with Spain because we wanted to, not really because of some tragedy like Pearl Harbor. The Philippines revolted against us because of poor treatment. Again, the tabloids were pro American, and therefore, underplayed our treatment. We wanted to expand, bottom line. In Korea and Vietnam, we invaded because of the containment policy, the goal was to keep Communism out. As far as the UN goes, our troops made up most of the fighting force. We were the ones who persuaded the UN to allow a conflict to happen. In WWI, Mexico would never have invaded, they were too weak and we were too powerful. We had already shown them who's boss in the previous century. They weren't even that unified. In 1812, our soldiers weren't being forced into the Navy, some of our soldiers just went with them. Also, we really just wanted the territory in what is now Canada.artanis_neravar said:
Gladiator. Commodus WAS killed my a perfomer. Not a gladiator in the arena. He was strangled by a wrestler in his bath. Not as cool.
I have noticed that I didn't come across the way I wanted to, I wasn't necessarily saying that we had good reasons for war, I'm just trying to make the point that pretty much every country goes to war for reasons that may not be the best, it is not an exclusively American fault. And yes America citizens were pressed into the British navy because Britain refused to acknowledge that America had the sovereignty to grant citizenship to former citizens of other countriesxXAsherahXx said:
The War of 1812 was a huge mess for everybody. And yeah, I know that 'Mericuh doesn't have exclusive rights to being stupid, but I still believe that Europe has found better reasons for declaring war (although I would say the Franco-Prussian war takes the stupid cake since it was declared because of a letter.artanis_neravar said:
Eh, wouldn't be the only time that Disney filled it's animated movies with inaccuracies. Lest we forget Mulan.twistedmic said:
And since I can't think of anything better to add, here's this:
Oh this thread sets off a certain nostalgia relating back to my last history exam.. There's so much to pick from but if I had to chose it would be Gladiator. From little things like a lack of evidence to support the use of German Shepherds (the dogs) in combat and their tac-tics to slightly larger inaccuracies. Commodus actually reigned for some thing in the region of 13 years which was of course significantly condensed in the film. Although it is true the emperor did have a fondness for gladiatorial combat he did not kick the bucket in the arena. That occurred in the baths by a wrestler named Narcissus.